{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-733595", "citation": "Res. 00023-2018 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Rechazo de amparo contra reordenamiento vial en Tibás por conflicto de legalidad ordinaria", "title_en": "Dismissal of amparo against Tibás road reorganization as an ordinary legality dispute", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional rechaza de plano un recurso de amparo interpuesto por vecinos del cantón de Tibás contra la Municipalidad de Tibás y el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT). Los recurrentes impugnaban la aprobación de un plan piloto de reordenamiento vial, alegando que el Concejo Municipal lo aprobó sin cumplir requisitos formales y materiales, sin el plan quinquenal exigido por el artículo 2 de la Ley 9239, sin estudios de impacto ambiental o vial, sin audiencia pública previa y con graves afectaciones a los munícipes. La Sala considera que el asunto no involucra, al menos en forma directa, ningún derecho fundamental, sino que constituye un conflicto de legalidad ordinaria. Señala que no es un contralor de legalidad ni una instancia más de la Administración, por lo que no le corresponde revisar si el plan se ajusta a la normativa infra constitucional. En consecuencia, declara inadmisible el recurso por exceder el ámbito de competencia de la jurisdicción constitucional.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber summarily dismisses an amparo action filed by residents of Tibás against the Municipality of Tibás and the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT). The petitioners challenged the approval of a pilot road reorganization plan, arguing that the Municipal Council approved it without meeting formal and substantive requirements, without the five-year plan required by Article 2 of Law 9239, without environmental or traffic impact studies, without prior public hearing, and with serious harm to residents. The Chamber finds that the matter does not involve, at least directly, any fundamental right, but rather constitutes an ordinary legality dispute. It states that it is neither a legality controller nor an additional administrative instance, and therefore it is not its role to review whether the plan complies with infra-constitutional regulations. Consequently, it declares the appeal inadmissible as exceeding the scope of constitutional jurisdiction.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "2018", "year": "2018", "topic_ids": [ "procedural-environmental" ], "primary_topic_id": "procedural-environmental", "es_concept_hints": [ "recurso de amparo", "legalidad ordinaria", "inadmisibilidad", "rechazo de plano", "contralor de legalidad", "Ley 9239" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 2", "law": "Ley 9239" } ], "keywords_es": [ "recurso de amparo", "reordenamiento vial", "legalidad ordinaria", "inadmisibilidad", "MOPT", "Municipalidad de Tibás", "Ley 9239", "plan regulador", "audiencia pública", "impacto ambiental" ], "keywords_en": [ "amparo action", "road reorganization", "ordinary legality", "inadmissibility", "MOPT", "Municipality of Tibás", "Law 9239", "urban master plan", "public hearing", "environmental impact" ], "excerpt_es": "En el sub lite, se advierte que lo planteado por los recurrentes no es más que un conflicto de legalidad ordinaria, que no involucra, al menos en forma directa, derecho fundamental alguno, razón por la cual excede el ámbito de competencia de esta Sala. En efecto, este Tribunal no es un contralor de legalidad ni una instancia más de la Administración, de modo que no le corresponde revisar, si el plan piloto de reordenamiento vial aprobado por la municipalidad accionada se ajusta a la normativa infra constitucional. Esos extremos deben ser resueltos por la Administración o, en su caso, por la jurisdicción ordinaria. En razón de lo anterior, el recurso se declara inadmisible.", "excerpt_en": "In the case at hand, it is noted that what the petitioners have raised is nothing more than an ordinary legality dispute, which does not involve, at least directly, any fundamental right, and therefore exceeds the scope of this Chamber's jurisdiction. Indeed, this Court is not a legality controller nor an additional instance of the Administration, and it is not its role to review whether the pilot road reorganization plan approved by the respondent municipality complies with infra-constitutional regulations. Those matters must be resolved by the Administration or, where appropriate, by the ordinary courts. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is declared inadmissible.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Inadmissible", "label_es": "Inadmisible", "summary_en": "The Chamber summarily dismisses the amparo action as it constitutes an ordinary legality dispute that does not directly involve fundamental rights.", "summary_es": "La Sala rechaza de plano el recurso de amparo por tratarse de un conflicto de legalidad ordinaria que no involucra directamente derechos fundamentales." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "this Court is not a legality controller nor an additional instance of the Administration, and it is not its role to review whether the pilot road reorganization plan approved by the respondent municipality complies with infra-constitutional regulations.", "quote_es": "este Tribunal no es un contralor de legalidad ni una instancia más de la Administración, de modo que no le corresponde revisar, si el plan piloto de reordenamiento vial aprobado por la municipalidad accionada se ajusta a la normativa infra constitucional." }, { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "In the case at hand, it is noted that what the petitioners have raised is nothing more than an ordinary legality dispute, which does not involve, at least directly, any fundamental right.", "quote_es": "En el sub lite, se advierte que lo planteado por los recurrentes no es más que un conflicto de legalidad ordinaria, que no involucra, al menos en forma directa, derecho fundamental alguno." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-733595", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "*170187450007CO*\n\r\n\r\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 17-018745-0007-CO \n\r\n\r\n\nPROCESO: RECURSO DE AMPARO\n\r\n\r\n\nRESOLUCIÓN Nº 2018000023\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve\r\nhoras quince minutos del nueve de enero de dos mil dieciocho .\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n Recurso\r\nde amparo interpuesto por MAURICIO OCAMPO JIMÉNEZ, cédula de identidad\r\n0108410383, IDALI LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ, cédula de identidad 501400355, CARLOS LUIS\r\nGONZALEZ CAMPOS, cédula de identidad 0102800884, JOSE FABIO ALVARADO\r\nSANCHEZ, cédula de identidad 0900420859, SILVIA ARAYA CAMBRONERO,\r\ncédula de identidad 0108470215, WILLIAM ZARATE GUEVARA, cédula\r\nde identidad 018600612, ALCIDES TELLOS SAMANEZ , cédula de identidad\r\n0800760257, EDGAR MORALES ARIAS, cédula de identidad 0103850849, JORGE\r\nVINCENTI , cédula de identidad 0109370027, OLMAN RODRIGUEZ GONZÁLEZ\r\n, cédula de identidad 0601150185, MARCO CASTILLO ZUMBADO, cédula de\r\nidentidad 0103020745, ALEXANDER CALDERÓN MUÑOZ,\r\ncédula de identidad 0303430115, JOSE MANUEL JUAREZ\r\nMONTEJANO, cédula de residencia 148400031633, RODRIGO\r\nJUMENEZ HERRERA, cédula de identidad 040082183, OFELIA\r\nRAMIREZ CUBERO, cédula de identidad 02002811229, LILIAM GRICEL BADILLA\r\nLÓPEZ, cédula de identidad 0602130894, contra el\r\nMINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS Y TRANSPORTE y la MUNICIPALIDAD DE TIBÁS.\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nResultando:\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 14:31 horas del 28\r\nde noviembre de 2017, los promoventes interponen recurso de amparo con la\r\nMunicipalidad de Tibás. Alegan que el municipio accionado dispuso un plan\r\npiloto de reordenamiento vial del cantón de Tibás, sin seguir ni dar\r\ncumplimiento a los procedimientos y requisitos formales y materiales, ni contar\r\ncon las autorizaciones necesarias que establece el ordenamiento jurídico.\r\nExplican que, según acta de sesión extraordinaria N°31-2017 del 13 de julio de\r\n2017, se conoció la “Propuesta Plan de Reordenamiento Vial del Cantón de Tibás”\r\npresentada por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes. Sostienen que el\r\nmunicipio no cuenta con el Plan Vial de Conservación y Desarrollo (Quinquenal),\r\ndebidamente aprobado por el Concejo Municipal, que exige el artículo 2 de la\r\nLey 9239, de Transferencia de Competencias, que dé sustento a algún plan de\r\nreordenamiento vial cantonal. Manifiestan que en la sesión N°31 del 31 de julio\r\nde 2017 se aprobó la propuesta de reordenamiento aludida; sin embargo, se\r\nevidencia el incumplimiento de una serie de requisitos por parte del Concejo\r\nMunicipal, lo que ocasiona la nulidad absoluta de ese acuerdo, así como\r\nviolaciones graves a los munícipes. Detallan que el “Orden del día” de dicha\r\nsesión fue recibir en ‘AUDIENCIA DE LA SRA. LIZA CASTILLO VICEMINISTRA DE\r\nTRANSPORTES, EL SR. JUNIOR ARAYA DIRECTOR DE INGENIERÍA DE TRANSITO Y EL ING.\r\nMADRIGAL MORALES DIRECTOR DE LA UNIDAD TECNICA DE GESTION VIAL MUNICIPAL’, y no\r\nel conocimiento de la Propuesta de Reordenamiento Vial del Cantón de Tibás, y\r\nmucho menos aprobarlo, como así lo hizo el Concejo. Aseguran que no consta\r\nmoción firmada donde se observe que el acuerdo fue iniciativa de alguno de los\r\nregidores o del Alcalde, ni consta algún dictamen de la Comisión respecto a\r\ndicho plan; tampoco consta la existencia de criterios técnicos o jurídicos\r\nemitidos por la Junta Vial Cantonal como la Asesoría Legal. Relatan que el\r\ndocumento “Plan de Reordenamiento Vial en el Cantón de Tibás”, no fue recibido\r\npor el Alcalde sino hasta el 17 de agosto de 2017, es decir, un mes y cuatro\r\ndías después de que lo aprobara el Concejo, pues no consta en el acta de la\r\nsesión N° 31 supracitada. Aseveran que tal documento es un acto preparatorio\r\ndel MOPT, que emite recomendaciones no vinculantes para la municipalidad.\r\nMencionan que no consta que el Concejo Municipal haya aprobado alguna solicitud\r\ndel MOPT, solicitándole intervención como rector sectorial, para que estructurara\r\nun proyecto de Plan de Reordenamiento Vial, ni que este ministerio aprobara el\r\nmismo. Subrayan que las rutas intervenidas corresponden a la red vial cantonal\r\ny no a la nacional, por lo que no es posible la intervención directa del MOPT.\r\nAfirman que no existen estudios de impacto ambiental o vial. Refieren que\r\ntampoco se convocó a una audiencia pública a los vecinos del cantón, para que\r\nse pudieran manifestar sobre como el reordenamiento vial afecta el uso de suelo\r\nmunicipal y, a su vez, es la base de regulación del Plan Regulador Urbano del\r\ncantón. Exponen que no fue sino hasta el 31 de octubre de 2017 que se efectuó\r\nla audiencia, a solicitud de los munícipes. Indican que el MOPT despojó a la\r\nmunicipalidad de dos vías pertenecientes a la red vial cantonal, destinándolos\r\na carriles exclusivos para autobuses, sin autorización del Concejo. Agregan que\r\nel MOPT y la municipalidad variaron sin oportunidad de defensa y audiencia\r\nprevia, las condiciones bajo las cuales otorgaron las patentes al impedir\r\nparqueos y accesos a viviendas y a locales comerciales. Para carga y descarga,\r\nlo que ha provocado el cierre de más de 22 establecimientos comerciales.\r\nAgregan que después de la ejecución del plan, no existe intervención alguna en\r\nla red vial cantonal, como podría serlo la señalización vial que indique la\r\nexistencia del carril de buses, u otros además, las paradas de buses no están\r\nacondicionadas con mobiliario urbano o iluminación. Acusan que tampoco existe\r\ncontrol respecto a los límites de velocidad, todo lo cual ha causado una serie\r\nde accidentes de tránsito. Explican que tampoco se han demarcado zonas de\r\nseguridad o pasos peatonales, pese a que circulan estudiantes del Liceo Mauro\r\nFernández, de la Escuela y Kinder Miguel Obregón, y de los asilos y centros\r\ndiurnos de adultos mayores. Reclaman que tampoco existe previsión\r\npresupuestaria para financiar las obras de infraestructura. Mencionan que\r\ntambién se anuló la posibilidad de que en los funerales se saquen a los\r\ndifuntos por la puerta principal de la iglesia, debiendo hacerlo por las\r\nlaterales. Arguyen que el Concejo Municipal, mediante acuerdo V11-1, de\r\nla Sesión Ordinaria N°80, del 7 de noviembre de 2017, conoció el recurso\r\nextraordinario de revisión contra el acuerdo II de la Sesión Extraordinaria\r\nN°31 del 13 de julio de 2017, interpuesto por Ana Victoria Castillo Saborío, el\r\ncual se trasladó a la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos para su estudio, análisis y\r\npresentación del dictamen correspondiente. Señalan que, a la fecha, el asunto\r\nse encuentra en estudio de la Comisión Jurídica. Por lo anterior, estiman\r\nlesionados sus derechos fundamentales y solicitan la intervención de la Sala\r\npara que ordene a la Municipalidad de Tibas anular el Acuerdo II del Acta de la\r\nSesión Extraordinaria N° 31 del 31 de julio de 2017 del Concejo Municipal, y al\r\nMOPT que se restablezca la vialidad del cantón de Tibás al estado original.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n2.- El artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a la\r\nSala a rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su\r\npresentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte\r\nser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de\r\njuicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o\r\nreproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n Redacta\r\nel Magistrado Rueda Leal; y, \n\r\n\r\n\nConsiderando:\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n I.- OBJETO\r\nDEL RECURSO. Los promoventes acusan que, el 31 de julio de 2017, el Concejo\r\nMunicipal de la Municipalidad de Tibás aprobó un plan piloto de reordenamiento\r\nvial sin cumplir los procedimientos y requisitos formales y materiales, ni\r\ncontar con las autorizaciones exigidas por el ordenamiento jurídico. Por lo\r\nanterior, estiman lesionados sus derechos fundamentales y solicitan la\r\nintervención de la Sala para que ordene a la Municipalidad de Tibas anular el\r\nAcuerdo II del Acta de la Sesión Extraordinaria N° 31 del 31 de julio de 2017\r\ndel Concejo Municipal, y al MOPT que restablezca la vialidad del cantón de\r\nTibás al estado original.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nII.-SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO. En el sub lite, se advierte que lo planteado por\r\nlos recurrentes no es más que un conflicto de legalidad ordinaria, que no\r\ninvolucra, al menos en forma directa, derecho fundamental alguno, razón por la\r\ncual excede el ámbito de competencia de esta Sala. En efecto, este Tribunal no\r\nes un contralor de legalidad ni una instancia más de la Administración, de modo\r\nque no le corresponde revisar, si el plan piloto de reordenamiento vial\r\naprobado por la municipalidad accionada se ajusta a la normativa infra\r\nconstitucional. Esos extremos deben ser resueltos por la Administración o, en\r\nsu caso, por la jurisdicción ordinaria. En razón de lo anterior, el recurso se\r\ndeclara inadmisible.\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nIII.- DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE . Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel,\r\nasí como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de\r\ncarácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido\r\npor nuevas tecnologías, éstos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo\r\nmáximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta\r\nsentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea\r\nretirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el \"Reglamento sobre\r\nExpediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", aprobado por la Corte\r\nPlena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado\r\nen el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el\r\nacuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N°\r\n43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI . \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPor\r\ntanto:\n\r\n\r\n\n Se\r\nrechaza de plano el recurso. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n\n\r\n \nErnesto Jinesta L.\n\r\n \nPresidente\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \n\n\r\n \nFernando Cruz C.\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n\n\r\n \nFernando Castillo V.\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \n\n\r\n \nPaul Rueda L.\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n\n\r\n \nMauricio Chacón J.\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n \n\r\n \r\n \n\n\r\n \nJose Paulino Hernández G.\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n \n\r\n \r\n \r\n \n\n\r\n \nIleana Sanchez N.\n\r\n \r\n \n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nDocumento Firmado Digitalmente\n\r\n\r\n\n-- Código verificador --\n\r\n\r\n\n*47VBQZYQINVU61*\n\r\n\r\n\n 47VBQZYQINVU61\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 17-018745-0007-CO \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nTeléfonos: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax:\r\n2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Dirección electrónica:\r\nwww.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Dirección: (Sabana Sur, Calle\r\nMorenos, 100 mts.Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro). Recepción de\r\ndocumentos: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral,\r\nBarrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6", "body_en_text": "*170187450007CO*\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 17-018745-0007-CO\n\nPROCESO: RECURSO DE AMPARO\n\nRESOLUCIÓN Nº 2018000023\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine\nhours fifteen minutes on the ninth of January, two thousand eighteen.\n\nRecurso\nde amparo filed by MAURICIO OCAMPO JIMÉNEZ, identity card\n0108410383, IDALI LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ, identity card 501400355, CARLOS LUIS\nGONZALEZ CAMPOS, identity card 0102800884, JOSE FABIO ALVARADO\nSANCHEZ, identity card 0900420859, SILVIA ARAYA CAMBRONERO,\nidentity card 0108470215, WILLIAM ZARATE GUEVARA, identity\ncard 018600612, ALCIDES TELLOS SAMANEZ , identity card\n0800760257, EDGAR MORALES ARIAS, identity card 0103850849, JORGE\nVINCENTI , identity card 0109370027, OLMAN RODRIGUEZ GONZÁLEZ\n, identity card 0601150185, MARCO CASTILLO ZUMBADO, identity\ncard 0103020745, ALEXANDER CALDERÓN MUÑOZ,\nidentity card 0303430115, JOSE MANUEL JUAREZ\nMONTEJANO, residence card 148400031633, RODRIGO\nJUMENEZ HERRERA, identity card 040082183, OFELIA\nRAMIREZ CUBERO, identity card 02002811229, LILIAM GRICEL BADILLA\nLÓPEZ, identity card 0602130894, against the\nMINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS Y TRANSPORTE and the MUNICIPALIDAD DE TIBÁS.\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:31 hours on the 28th\nof November, 2017, the petitioners file a recurso de amparo against the\nMunicipalidad de Tibás. They allege that the respondent municipality ordered a pilot\nplan for road reorganization (plan piloto de reordenamiento vial) of the Tibás canton, without following or\ncomplying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having\nthe necessary authorizations established by the legal system.\nThey explain that, according to the record of extraordinary session N°31-2017 of the 13th of July,\n2017, the “Proposal for the Road Reorganization Plan of the Tibás Canton” (Propuesta Plan de Reordenamiento Vial del Cantón de Tibás)\npresented by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes was made known. They maintain that the\nmunicipality does not have the Five-Year Road Conservation and Development Plan (Plan Vial de Conservación y Desarrollo—Quinquenal),\nduly approved by the Municipal Council, as required by Article 2 of\nLaw 9239, on Transfer of Competencies, which would provide support for any plan\nfor cantonal road reorganization. They state that at session N°31 of the 31st of July\n2017, the aforementioned reorganization proposal was approved; however,\nnon-compliance with a series of requirements by the Municipal Council\nis evident, which causes the absolute nullity of that agreement, as well as\nserious violations against the residents. They detail that the “Order of the day” of that\nsession was to receive in ‘AUDIENCE THE MRS. LIZA CASTILLO VICE-MINISTER OF\nTRANSPORT, MR. JUNIOR ARAYA DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND ENG.\nMADRIGAL MORALES DIRECTOR OF THE TECHNICAL UNIT FOR MUNICIPAL ROAD MANAGEMENT’, and not\nthe consideration of the Road Reorganization Proposal for the Tibás Canton, and\nmuch less to approve it, as the Council did. They assert that there is no\nsigned motion showing that the agreement was the initiative of any of the\ncouncil members or the Mayor, nor is there any opinion from the Commission regarding\nsaid plan; nor is there evidence of the existence of technical or legal criteria\nissued by the Junta Vial Cantonal or Legal Advisory. They relate that the\ndocument “Road Reorganization Plan in the Tibás Canton” was not received\nby the Mayor until the 17th of August, 2017, that is, one month and four\ndays after it was approved by the Council, since it is not included in the record of the\naforementioned session N° 31. They assert that such document is a preparatory act\nof the MOPT, which issues non-binding recommendations for the municipality.\nThey mention that there is no record that the Municipal Council approved any request\nfrom the MOPT, requesting its intervention as sectorial rector, to structure\na Road Reorganization Plan project, nor that this ministry approved said\nplan. They stress that the routes intervened correspond to the cantonal road network\nand not the national one, so the direct intervention of the MOPT is not possible.\nThey affirm that there are no environmental or road impact studies. They state that\nneither was a public hearing convened for the canton's residents, so they\ncould express how the road reorganization affects the municipal land use (uso de suelo)\nand, in turn, is the basis of regulation for the Urban Regulating Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the\ncanton. They explain that it was not until the 31st of October, 2017, that the\nhearing was held, at the request of the residents. They indicate that the MOPT stripped the\nmunicipality of two roads belonging to the cantonal road network, designating them\nas exclusive lanes for buses, without authorization from the Council. They add that\nthe MOPT and the municipality varied, without opportunity for defense and prior\nhearing, the conditions under which they granted licenses (patentes) by preventing\nparking and access to homes and commercial premises. For loading and unloading,\nwhich has caused the closure of more than 22 commercial establishments.\nThey add that after the execution of the plan, there is no intervention whatsoever in\nthe cantonal road network, such as road signage indicating the\nexistence of the bus lane, or others; furthermore, the bus stops are not\nadapted with urban furniture or lighting. They accuse that there is also no\ncontrol regarding speed limits, all of which has caused a series\nof traffic accidents. They explain that safety zones\nor pedestrian crossings have not been marked, despite students from the Mauro\nFernández High School, the Miguel Obregón School and Kindergarten, and the nursing homes and senior\nday centers circulating there. They complain that there is also no budget\nforecast to finance the infrastructure works. They mention that\nthe possibility of taking the deceased\nout through the main door of the church during funerals was also eliminated, having to do so through the\nside doors. They argue that the Municipal Council, through agreement V11-1, of\nthe Ordinary Session N°80, of the 7th of November, 2017, considered the extraordinary\nmotion for review against agreement II of Extraordinary Session\nN°31 of the 13th of July, 2017, filed by Ana Victoria Castillo Saborío, which\nwas referred to the Commission on Legal Affairs for its study, analysis, and\npresentation of the corresponding opinion. They point out that, to date, the matter\nis under study by the Legal Commission. For the foregoing, they consider\ntheir fundamental rights injured and request the intervention of the Chamber\nto order the Municipalidad de Tibás to annul Agreement II of the Record of\nExtraordinary Session N° 31 of the 31st of July, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and to\nMOPT that the road system of the Tibás canton be restored to its original state.\n\n2.- Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the\nChamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its\nfiling, any action presented to its consideration that is\nmanifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient\nelements of judgment to reject it, or that it is the simple reiteration or\nreproduction of a prior, equal, or similar action that was rejected.\n\nThe Magistrate Rueda Leal writes; and,\n\nConsiderando:\n\nI.- OBJECT\nOF THE RECURSO. The petitioners accuse that, on the 31st of July, 2017, the Municipal Council\nof the Municipalidad de Tibás approved a pilot plan for road reorganization\nwithout complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor\nhaving the authorizations required by the legal system. For\nthe foregoing, they consider their fundamental rights injured and request the\nintervention of the Chamber to order the Municipalidad de Tibás to annul\nAgreement II of the Record of Extraordinary Session N° 31 of the 31st of July, 2017,\nof the Municipal Council, and to MOPT to restore the road system of the Tibás\ncanton to its original state.\n\nII.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. In the sub lite, it is noted that what is raised by\nthe petitioners is no more than an ordinary legality dispute, which does\nnot involve, at least directly, any fundamental right, which is why\nit exceeds the scope of competence of this Chamber. In fact, this Tribunal is not\na comptroller of legality nor one more instance of the Administration, such that\nit is not for it to review whether the pilot plan for road reorganization\napproved by the respondent municipality conforms to infra-constitutional\nnorms. Those extremes must be resolved by the Administration or, where\nappropriate, by the ordinary jurisdiction. For the foregoing reason, the recurso is\ndeclared inadmissible.\n\nIII.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE EXPEDIENTE. The parties are warned that, if any paper document\nhas been provided,\nas well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of\nelectronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic nature or produced\nby new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum\nperiod of 30 working days counted from the notification of this\njudgment. Otherwise, any material not\nwithdrawn within this period will be destroyed, according to the provisions of the \"Reglamento sobre\nExpediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", approved by the Corte\nPlena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published\nin the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the\nagreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session N°\n43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe recurso is rejected outright.\n\nErnesto Jinesta L.\nPresidente\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nFernando Castillo V.\n\nPaul Rueda L.\n\nMauricio Chacón J.\n\nJose Paulino Hernández G.\n\nIleana Sanchez N.\n\nDocumento Firmado Digitalmente\n\n-- Código verificador --\n\n*47VBQZYQINVU61*\n\n47VBQZYQINVU61\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 17-018745-0007-CO\n\nTelephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax:\n2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Electronic address:\nwww.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle\nMorenos, 100 mts.Sur of the Perpetuo Socorro church).\n\nDocument reception: Supreme Court Building, San José, Catedral District, González Lahmann Neighborhood, 19th and 21st Streets, 8th and 6th Avenues.\n\nCASE FILE No. 17-018745-0007-CO\n\nPROCEEDING: AMPARO PETITION\n\nRESOLUTION No. 2018000023\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on January ninth, two thousand eighteen.\n\nAmparo petition filed by MAURICIO OCAMPO JIMÉNEZ, identity card 0108410383, IDALI LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ, identity card 501400355, CARLOS LUIS GONZALEZ CAMPOS, identity card 0102800884, JOSE FABIO ALVARADO SANCHEZ, identity card 0900420859, SILVIA ARAYA CAMBRONERO, identity card 0108470215, WILLIAM ZARATE GUEVARA, identity card 018600612, ALCIDES TELLOS SAMANEZ, identity card 0800760257, EDGAR MORALES ARIAS, identity card 0103850849, JORGE VINCENTI, identity card 0109370027, OLMAN RODRIGUEZ GONZÁLEZ, identity card 0601150185, MARCO CASTILLO ZUMBADO, identity card 0103020745, ALEXANDER CALDERÓN MUÑOZ, identity card 0303430115, JOSE MANUEL JUAREZ MONTEJANO, residency card 148400031633, RODRIGO JUMENEZ HERRERA, identity card 040082183, OFELIA RAMIREZ CUBERO, identity card 02002811229, LILIAM GRICEL BADILLA LÓPEZ, identity card 0602130894, against the MINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS Y TRANSPORTE and the MUNICIPALIDAD DE TIBÁS.\n\nConsidering:\n\n1.- By document received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:31 hours on November 28, 2017, the petitioners file an amparo petition against the Municipalidad de Tibás.\n\nThey allege that the respondent municipality ordered a pilot road reorganization plan (plan piloto de reordenamiento vial) for the canton of Tibás, without following or complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the necessary authorizations established by the legal system. They explain that, according to the minutes of extraordinary session No. 31-2017 of July 13, 2017, the \"Road Reorganization Plan Proposal for the Canton of Tibás\" presented by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) was made known. They maintain that the municipality does not have the Road Conservation and Development Plan (Quinquennial), duly approved by the Municipal Council, as required by Article 2 of Law 9239, on the Transfer of Competencies, to support any cantonal road reorganization plan. They state that in session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, the aforementioned reorganization proposal was approved; however, non-compliance with a series of requirements by the Municipal Council is evident, which causes the absolute nullity of that agreement, as well as serious violations against the residents. They detail that the \"Agenda\" for that session was to receive in 'AUDIENCE WITH MRS. LIZA CASTILLO VICE-MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, MR. JUNIOR ARAYA DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND ENG. MADRIGAL MORALES DIRECTOR OF THE MUNICIPAL ROAD MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL UNIT', and not the consideration of the Road Reorganization Proposal for the Canton of Tibás, much less its approval, as the Council did. They assert that there is no signed motion showing that the agreement was an initiative of any of the council members or the Mayor, nor is there any opinion from the Committee regarding said plan; neither is there evidence of technical or legal criteria issued by the Cantonal Road Board or the Legal Advisory Office. They relate that the document \"Road Reorganization Plan in the Canton of Tibás\" was not received by the Mayor until August 17, 2017, that is, one month and four days after it was approved by the Council, since it is not recorded in the minutes of the aforementioned session No. 31. They claim that this document is a preparatory act of MOPT, which issues non-binding recommendations for the municipality. They mention that there is no record that the Municipal Council approved any request from MOPT, asking for its intervention as sectoral authority, to structure a Road Reorganization Plan project, nor that this ministry approved it. They emphasize that the routes intervened belong to the cantonal road network and not the national one, therefore direct intervention by MOPT is not possible. They state that there are no environmental impact studies or traffic impact studies (estudios de impacto vial). They refer that a public hearing was not convened for the residents of the canton, so that they could express themselves on how the road reorganization affects municipal land use (uso de suelo municipal) and, in turn, is the basis of regulation for the Canton's Urban Regulatory Plan. They explain that it was not until October 31, 2017, that the hearing was held, at the request of the residents. They indicate that MOPT dispossessed the municipality of two roads belonging to the cantonal road network, designating them as exclusive lanes for buses, without authorization from the Council. They add that MOPT and the municipality varied, without opportunity for defense and prior hearing, the conditions under which they granted business licenses (patentes) by preventing parking and access to homes and commercial premises for loading and unloading, which has caused the closure of more than 22 commercial establishments.\n\nThey add that after the execution of the plan, there is no intervention whatsoever in the cantonal road network, such as road signage indicating the existence of the bus lane, among others, in addition, the bus stops are not equipped with street furniture or lighting. They accuse that there is also no control regarding speed limits, all of which has caused a series of traffic accidents. They explain that safety zones or pedestrian crossings have not been demarcated either, despite the fact that students from the Mauro Fernández High School, the Miguel Obregón School and Kindergarten, and from nursing homes and adult day centers circulate there. They complain that there is also no budget provision to finance the infrastructure works. They mention that the possibility was also canceled of taking the deceased out through the main door of the church during funerals, having to do so through the side doors. They argue that the Municipal Council, through agreement V11-1, of Ordinary Session No. 80, of November 7, 2017, acknowledged the extraordinary motion for review against agreement II of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 13, 2017, filed by Ana Victoria Castillo Saborío, which was referred to the Legal Affairs Committee for its study, analysis, and presentation of the corresponding opinion. They point out that, to date, the matter is under study by the Legal Committee. For the foregoing, they consider their fundamental rights harmed and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipality of Tibás to annul Agreement II of the Minutes of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and MOPT to restore the roadways of the canton of Tibás to their original state.\n\n2.- Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its filing, any petition brought to its attention that proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a mere reiteration or reproduction of an equal or similar previous petition that was rejected.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate **Rueda Leal**; and,\n\n**Considerando:**\n\n**I.- OBJECT OF THE APPEAL**. The petitioners allege that, on July 31, 2017, the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Tibás approved a pilot road reorganization plan without complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the authorizations required by the legal system. For the foregoing, they consider their fundamental rights harmed and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipality of Tibás to annul Agreement II of the Minutes of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and MOPT to restore the roadways of the canton of Tibás to their original state.\n\n**II.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.** In the case *sub lite*, it is noted that what is raised by the appellants is nothing more than a conflict of ordinary legality, which does not involve, at least directly, any fundamental right, a reason for which it exceeds the scope of jurisdiction of this Chamber. In effect, this Court is not a controller of legality nor another instance of the Administration, such that it is not its place to review whether the pilot road reorganization plan approved by the respondent municipality conforms to infra-constitutional regulations. Those extremes must be resolved by the Administration or, where appropriate, by the ordinary jurisdiction. For the foregoing reason, the appeal is declared inadmissible.\n\n**III.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE**. The parties are warned that if any document on paper has been provided, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic nature or produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the \"Regulations on Electronic Files before the Judiciary,\" approved by the Full Court in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThe appeal is rejected outright.\n\n| | | |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| | [graphic] | |\n| | Ernesto Jinesta L. | |\n| | Presidente | |\n| [graphic] | | [graphic] |\n| Fernando Cruz C. | | Fernando Castillo V. |\n| [graphic] | | [graphic] |\n| Paul Rueda L. | | Mauricio Chacón J. |\n| [graphic] | | [graphic] |\n| Jose Paulino Hernández G. | | Ileana Sanchez N. |\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n-- Verifier code --\n*47VBQZYQINVU61*\n47VBQZYQINVU61\n\n**EXPEDIENTE N° 17-018745-0007-CO**\n\nTelephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Email: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Perpetuo Socorro church).\n\n*170187450007CO*\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 17-018745-0007-CO\n\nPROCESO: RECURSO DE AMPARO\n\nRESOLUCIÓN Nº 2018000023\n\n \n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.\n\nSan José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on January ninth, two thousand eighteen.\n\nAmparo action filed by **MAURICIO OCAMPO JIMÉNEZ**, identity card 0108410383, **IDALI LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ**, identity card 501400355, **CARLOS LUIS GONZALEZ CAMPOS**, identity card 0102800884, **JOSE FABIO ALVARADO SANCHEZ**, identity card 0900420859, **SILVIA ARAYA CAMBRONERO**, identity card 0108470215, **WILLIAM ZARATE GUEVARA**, identity card 018600612, **ALCIDES TELLOS SAMANEZ**, identity card 0800760257, **EDGAR MORALES ARIAS**, identity card 0103850849, **JORGE VINCENTI**, identity card 0109370027, **OLMAN RODRIGUEZ GONZÁLEZ**, identity card 0601150185, **MARCO CASTILLO ZUMBADO**, identity card 0103020745, **ALEXANDER CALDERÓN MUÑOZ**, identity card 0303430115, **JOSE MANUEL JUAREZ MONTEJANO,** residency card 148400031633, **RODRIGO JUMENEZ HERRERA,** identity card 040082183, **OFELIA RAMIREZ CUBERO,** identity card 02002811229, **LILIAM GRICEL BADILLA LÓPEZ**, identity card 0602130894, against the **MINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS Y TRANSPORTE** and the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE TIBÁS.**\n\n**Resultando:**\n\n**1.-** By a writing received by the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:31 hours on November 28, 2017, the petitioners file an amparo action against the Municipalidad de Tibás. They allege that the respondent municipality ordered a pilot plan for road reorganization (reordenamiento vial) of the canton of Tibás, without following or complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the necessary authorizations established by the legal system. They explain that, according to the minutes of extraordinary session No. 31-2017 of July 13, 2017, the \"Propuesta Plan de Reordenamiento Vial del Cantón de Tibás\" presented by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes was made known. They argue that the municipality does not have a Road Conservation and Development Plan (Five-Year Plan) (Plan Vial de Conservación y Desarrollo (Quinquenal)), duly approved by the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal), as required by Article 2 of Law 9239, on Transfer of Competencies (Ley de Transferencia de Competencias), to support any cantonal road reorganization plan. They state that in session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, the aforementioned reorganization proposal was approved; however, the failure to comply with a series of requirements by the Municipal Council is evident, which causes the absolute nullity of that agreement, as well as serious violations to the residents. They detail that the \"Agenda\" (Orden del día) of said session was to receive in 'AUDIENCE WITH MRS. LIZA CASTILLO VICE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, MR. JUNIOR ARAYA DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND ENGINEER MADRIGAL MORALES DIRECTOR OF THE TECHNICAL UNIT FOR MUNICIPAL ROAD MANAGEMENT (UNIDAD TECNICA DE GESTION VIAL MUNICIPAL)', and not the discussion of the Road Reorganization Proposal of the Canton of Tibás, much less to approve it, as the Council did. They assert that there is no signed motion showing that the agreement was an initiative of any of the councilors (regidores) or the Mayor, nor is there any opinion (dictamen) from the Committee regarding said plan; nor is there evidence of the existence of technical or legal criteria issued by the Cantonal Road Board (Junta Vial Cantonal) or the Legal Advisory Office. They relate that the document \"Plan de Reordenamiento Vial en el Cantón de Tibás\" was not received by the Mayor until August 17, 2017, that is, one month and four days after it was approved by the Council, since it does not appear in the minutes of the aforementioned session No. 31. They assert that such document is a preparatory act of the MOPT, which issues non-binding recommendations for the municipality. They mention that there is no evidence that the Municipal Council approved any request from the MOPT, asking for its intervention as sectorial rector (rector sectorial), to structure a Road Reorganization Plan project, nor that this ministry approved it. They emphasize that the routes intervened correspond to the cantonal road network (red vial cantonal) and not the national one, so direct intervention by the MOPT is not possible. They affirm that there are no environmental impact studies or traffic impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental o vial). They state that a public hearing was not even called for the residents of the canton, so they could express themselves on how the road reorganization affects municipal land use (uso de suelo municipal) and, in turn, is the basis for regulating the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the canton. They explain that it was not until October 31, 2017, that the hearing was held, at the request of the residents. They indicate that the MOPT stripped the municipality of two roads belonging to the cantonal road network, designating them as exclusive bus lanes, without the Council's authorization. They add that the MOPT and the municipality varied, without opportunity for defense and prior hearing, the conditions under which they granted business licenses (patentes) by preventing parking and access to homes and commercial premises for loading and unloading, which has caused the closure of more than 22 commercial establishments. They add that after the execution of the plan, there is no intervention whatsoever in the cantonal road network, such as road signage indicating the existence of the bus lane, or others; furthermore, the bus stops are not equipped with street furniture (mobiliario urbano) or lighting. They assert that there is also no control regarding speed limits, all of which has caused a series of traffic accidents. They explain that safety zones or pedestrian crossings have also not been demarcated (demarcado zonas de seguridad o pasos peatonales), despite the fact that students from the Liceo Mauro Fernández, the Escuela y Kinder Miguel Obregón, and from nursing homes and adult day centers circulate there. They complain that there is also no budget provision to finance the infrastructure works. They mention that the possibility of taking the deceased out through the main door of the church during funerals was also nullified, having to do so through the side doors. They argue that the Municipal Council, by means of agreement V11-1, of the Ordinary Session No. 80, of November 7, 2017, heard the extraordinary appeal for review (recurso extraordinario de revisión) against agreement II of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 13, 2017, filed by Ana Victoria Castillo Saborío, which was referred to the Legal Affairs Committee (Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos) for its study, analysis, and presentation of the corresponding opinion (dictamen). They point out that, to date, the matter is under study by the Legal Committee. For the foregoing reasons, they consider their fundamental rights violated and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipalidad de Tibas to annul Agreement II of the Minutes of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and the MOPT to restore the road system (vialidad) of the canton of Tibás to its original state.\n\n**2.-** Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) empowers the Chamber to reject, outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its filing, any action brought to its attention that proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a mere reiteration or reproduction of a previous identical or similar rejected action.\n\nDrafted by Judge (Magistrado) **Rueda Leal**; and,\n\n**Considerando:**\n\n**I.- OBJECT OF THE ACTION (OBJETO DEL RECURSO).** The petitioners claim that, on July 31, 2017, the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Tibás approved a pilot road reorganization plan without complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the authorizations required by the legal system. For the foregoing reasons, they consider their fundamental rights violated and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipalidad de Tibas to annul Agreement II of the Minutes of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and the MOPT to restore the road system of the canton of Tibás to its original state.\n\n**II.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE (SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO).** In the case at hand (sub lite), it is noted that what is raised by the appellants is nothing more than a conflict of ordinary legality, which does not involve, at least directly, any fundamental right, which is why it exceeds the scope of this Chamber's competence. Indeed, this Court is not a comptroller (contralor) of legality nor another instance of the Administration, so it is not its responsibility to review whether the pilot road reorganization plan approved by the respondent municipality conforms to infra-constitutional regulations. Those points must be resolved by the Administration or, where appropriate, by the ordinary jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the action is declared inadmissible.\n\n**III.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE (DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE).** The parties are warned that if they have provided any document on paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic nature or produced by new technologies, these must be removed from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material that is not removed within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThe action is rejected outright.\n\n

\n\n
\n\n

 

\n\n
\n\n

  

\n\n
\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n

 

\n 		\n

\n

Ernesto Jinesta L.

\n

President

\n 		\n

 

\n
\n

\n

Fernando Cruz C.

\n 		\n

 

\n 		\n

\n

Fernando Castillo V.

\n
\n

\n

Paul Rueda L.

\n 		\n

 

\n 		\n

\n

Mauricio Chacón J.

\n
\n

\n

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

\n 		\n

 

\n 		\n

\n

Ileana Sanchez N.

\n
\n\n
\n\n

 

\n\n

 

\n\n

Digitally Signed Document

\n\n

-- Verification code --

\n\n

*47VBQZYQINVU61*

\n\n

 47VBQZYQINVU61\n

\n\n

EXPEDIENTE N° 17-018745-0007-CO

\n\n

 

\n\n
\n\n
\n\n

Teléfonos: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax:\n2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Dirección electrónica:\nwww.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Dirección: (Sabana Sur, Calle\nMorenos, 100 mts.Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro). Recepción de\ndocumentos: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral,\nBarrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6

\n\n
\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n" }