2) By brief of March 3, 2014, the State answered the action negatively and raised the defense of lack of right (see folios 182-198 and 201-231).-
3) By pleading of March 4, 2014, Nombre20662 answered the lawsuit negatively and raised the defense of lack of right (see folios 232-248).-
4) Nombre145586 establishes the following claims in case file No. 13-8331-1027-CA (listen to the preliminary hearing and see the minute at folio 481):
\\\"1. That the non-conformity of the administrative act embodied in official letter DIPOA-A-112-11 and official letter SENASA-RCOC 145-2013 of October 10, 2013, which confirms it, as well as official letter SENASA-RCOC 129-2013 of September 12, 2013, which indicated that the annual registration update of the CVO of Embutidos Doro would not proceed, with the legal system be declared.
2. That the absolute nullity of the administrative act embodied in official letter DIPOA-A-211-11 and official letter SENASA-RCOC 145-2013 of October 10, 2013, which confirms it, be declared solely insofar as it requires having a veterinary medical regent (regente médico veterinario) and that instead, professionals in food technology be allowed to exercise said regency (regencia).
3. That the absolute nullity of the administrative act embodied in official letter SENASA-RCOC 129-2013 of September 12, 2013, which indicated that the annual registration update of our CVO would not proceed, be declared and that instead, the immediate annual registration of the referred veterinary operation certificate be ordered.
4. That the Administration be condemned to pay both sets of costs of this action.\\\"
5) By brief of March 10, 2014, the State answered the action negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam) (see folios 406-416).-
6) By pleading of March 14, 2014, Nombre20662 answered the lawsuit negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam) (see folios 417-435).-
7) That the Processing Judge, José Iván Salas Leitón, by resolution No. 1267-2014 of ten hours and forty minutes of June third, two thousand fourteen, ordered the joinder (acumulación) of case files numbers 13-8331-1027-CA and 13-8325-1027-CA, with the latter prevailing (folios 442-443).-
8) That with the presence of representatives of the parties, the preliminary hearing was held starting at eight hours and fifty-five minutes on March third last, presided over by the Processing Judge Luis Mariano Argüello Rojas. On that occasion, the claims of the parties were analyzed and the documentary evidence was admitted. Furthermore, the matter was declared one of pure law and the conclusions of the parties were received (listen to the corresponding recording and see the minute appearing at folios 480-482 of the judicial file);
9) In the proceedings, the legal prescriptions have been followed, with no grounds found that determine nullity of the actions taken. This judgment is issued after deliberation and by unanimity of the members of the Tribunal, Judge Rosa María Cortés Morales, and Judges Paulo André Alonso Soto and Jonatán Canales Hernández.-
Drafted by Judge Canales Hernández;
Considering:
I) The following facts and procedural situations are deemed proven as important for the resolution of this matter:
1) That Nombre20662 issued a Veterinary Operation Certificate (Certificado Veterinario de Operación, hereinafter \\\"COV\\\") in favor of the plaintiff company, effective as of August 25, 2009, for its plant located in the hamlet (caserío) of Barranca, district of San José, canton of Naranjo. The authorized activities were the storage and distribution of products of animal origin; storage and distribution of meat and meat products, processing and preservation of meat products, and production of sausages (embutidos). Said document established August 25, 2013, as the update date (folios 1-3 of the administrative file);
2) That Nombre20662, by means of official letter No. DIPOA-PG-002-RE-002 of February 2, 2009, established several non-conformities regarding the operation of the plant of the plaintiff's company, among them, that the plant requires a veterinary regent (regente veterinario) to operate, invoking for that purpose the General Health Law. That official letter gave rise to sanitary order DO-PG-002-RE-003 of that same date, addressed to that same company, indicating therein that: \\\"The establishment is made based on official letter DIPOA-A-112-11. The establishment must send, within a period of 6 days, concrete and definitive responses\\\" (folios 9-10 of the administrative file);
3) That the plaintiff Nombre145586 appeared as the responsible professional (Regent) of Embutidos Doro, as of August 23, 2013, in her capacity as Bachelor in Food Technology, under number 15 (folios 12-13 of the administrative file);
4) That by brief received by the Central Western Regional Directorate of Nombre20662 on February 11, 2011, the plaintiff company challenged the previous sanitary order, arguing that Nombre145586 , is registered as regent of the sausage factory, before the College of Chemical Engineers and Related Professionals, under the protection of Article 21 of Law No. 8412, \\\"(...) that (sic) protects her according to her professional profile to work as a regent in any sausage processing company, and from that date she was accepted by Nombre145591. , head of this department, as proof of this (sic) that we were granted the Veterinary Operation Certificate (CVO)\\\" (folio 11 of the administrative file);
5) That by brief received by the Central Western Regional Directorate of Nombre20662 on June 4, 2012, the plaintiff company requested the application of the positive silence (silencio positivo) provided for in Article 7 of the Law for the Protection of Citizens from Excessive Requirements (No. 8220), with respect to the petition to have the food technologist Nombre145586 , as regent in Embutidos Doro and Industrias Blanco Castro, S.A., even submitting a sworn statement (declaración jurada) before a notary public (folios 22-31 of the administrative file);
6) That by brief received by the Central Western Regional Directorate of Nombre20662 on May 31, 2013, the plaintiff company requested that the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed be resolved (folios 49-50 of the administrative file);
7) That Dr. Nombre145591 , Director of the Central Western Region of SENASA, by official letter SENASA-RCOC # 129-2013 of September 12, 2013, indicated to the plaintiff company that for the issuance of the annual registration, veterinary medical regency is indispensable, and that until it is presented, \\\"(...) it will not have the respective permit (Veterinary Operation Certificate) for its operation.\\\" In said document, reference was made to official letter DRCOC #240-12 Office of the Ombudsman (see folio 53, regarding the first official letter, and folios 43-44, regarding the second official letter; both from the administrative file);
8) That in a document indicating neither date of issuance nor date of receipt, addressed to the Director General of SENASA, the plaintiff company files an appeal (recurso de apelación) against official letter SENASA-RCOC No. 129-2013. It requests that while the challenge is being resolved, what is indicated therein be suspended (folio 54 of the administrative file);
9) That the plaintiff company initiated a legal protection (amparo de legalidad) proceeding against the State, which was processed in case file No. 13-005915-1027-CA of this Tribunal. That situation led the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) to address the Minister of Agriculture and the Director of SENASA, by official letter of October 1, 2013, so that the appeal against the sanitary order of February 2, 2011, be resolved promptly (folios 55-62 of the administrative file);
10) That Dr. Nombre145591 , Director of the Central Western Region of SENASA, by official letter SENASA-RCOC-145-2013 of 14:20 hours of October 10, 2013, rejected the revocation appeal (recurso de revocatoria) \\\"(...) filed against the order issued by Nombre20662 on February 2, 2011, official letter DIPOA-A-112-11 and therefore it is valid and effective and for which reason it must be obeyed and complied with immediately\\\" (folios 63-68 and 71-73 of the administrative file);
11) That the General Directorate of SENASA, by official letter SENASA-DG-AJ-079-2013 of 8:50 hours of October 22, 2013, rejected the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by the plaintiff company (folios 79-85 of the administrative file);
12) Once the previous administrative act was notified and upon a request for clarification, the Director of the Central Western Region of Nombre20662, by official letter No. SENASA-RCOC # 195-2013 of October 28, 2013, indicated to the plaintiff company that the period established to comply with the regency of a veterinary doctor in the sausage factory was one month from the notification of that official letter (folios 85-87 of the administrative file);
13) That according to a visit carried out by the Operations Directorate of SENASA on February 25, 2014, the sausage factory of the plaintiff company continued operating (folio 89 of the administrative file).-
II) The following facts and procedural situations are deemed not proven as important for the resolution of this matter:
1) That the sausage factory of Embutidos Doro has ceased to operate due to the administrative requirement of having a Veterinary Regent (no information in that sense is found in the record);
2) That the administrative requirement of having a Veterinary Regent as an indispensable requirement to issue the COV necessarily implies that the food technologist Nombre145586 must be dismissed (no information in that sense is found in the record).
III) Arguments given in case file No. 13-8325-1027-CA: In its lawsuit brief (folios 105-143), Nombre145585 alleges that the Public Administration has acted arbitrarily, given that Nombre20662 has attempted to impose, through formal conduct and without any regulatory basis, the hiring of a veterinary regent (regente veterinario), despite the fact that the hiring of a professional regent in Food Technology had previously been authorized, considering that in this production process, no live animals are involved, making the hiring of a veterinary doctor unreasonable. It recalls that the corporate purpose of the plaintiff company is to buy pork, chicken, and beef from duly registered slaughterhouses, to produce a wide range of sausages (embutidos) in its plant, with the finished product then being sold to wholesalers and retail food outlets, which are responsible for placement with the final consumer. It disqualifies the decision of Nombre20662 because it lacks legal basis and does not take into account the public interests at stake. It affirms that the competence of Nombre20662 to exercise control over the activity being carried out is not questioned, but rather the scope of its powers and the interpretation of the rule, with the administrative acts that deny the registration of its Veterinary Operation Certificate (CVO) being illegal (official letters DIPOA-A-112-11 and SENASA-RCOC 145-2013 of October 10, 2013, which confirmed the first) and in which it was communicated that the annual registration update of the CVO requested on August 26, 2013, would not proceed (official letters SENASA-RCOC 129-2013 of September 12 of that year). It argues that the sole reason for non-conformity with the decisions of Nombre20662 stems from the requirement raised to have veterinary regency, even though the activity carried out by the plaintiff company does not involve the handling or manipulation of live animals, the proper field of the veterinary doctor being the care and preservation of animal health, considering that \\\"(...) even though they may attend to other matters by connection, this is not their fundamental focus.\\\" It outlines that at all times, the meat acquired to manufacture sausages comes from slaughterhouses that have veterinarians for the livestock breeding phase, leaving the subjective criterion of the defendant body that orders the replacement of the food technologist with the veterinarian for the regency without a supporting rule. It argues that the problem is not solved by substituting the food technologist with the veterinarian, considering that the first professional is indispensable, making it materially impossible to carry out the industrial processes, whose specialist in charge regarding planning, execution, and supervision is the food technologist. It says that for a microenterprise, replacing the food technologist would make it impossible to remain in the market against large producers of national and international recognition, with hundreds of other small producers being in the same situation, thus affecting the public interest. It attacks the administrative acts in the following manner: - resolution DIPOA-A-112-11, which is a sanitary order requiring a veterinary regent, because the scope that Nombre20662 makes does not derive from the application of Article 221 of the General Health Law, with the interpretation and application carried out becoming an illegal act, considering that what this rule provides is the performance of a veterinary inspection, carried out by some public authority and not the establishment of a regency; - resolution SENASA-RCOC 145-2013 of October 10, 2013, which dismisses the revocation appeal (recurso de revocatoria) against the previous act, which took 30 months to be issued and which adds new elements to those set forth in the appealed act, intended to demonstrate undisputed facts and invoking the application of Law 8495 (which is a point that is not discussed); - resolution SENASA-RCOC 129-2013 of September 12, 2013, which denies the renewal of the CVO registration in favor of the plaintiff company, considering that its own reasoning is lacking, but rather it refers to other previous pronouncements. It alleges that through these actions, the principles of prohibition of arbitrariness, reasonableness, legal certainty, and intangibility of one's own acts have been violated, as well as \\\"(...) the basic rules of legal-normative exegesis, a clear violation of the non-legal norms of the act\\\" and injury to collective public and individual interests. It affirms that the violation of the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness is configured because there is a notorious and total absence of motive as an essential material element, understanding motive as the reasons of fact and law by virtue of which the issuance of an administrative act becomes necessary, the foregoing because the inadequate interpretation made of Article 221 of the General Health Law, as well as numeral 7 of the Regulation for the Granting of the CVO, with this interpretation made by the Regional Director of the West of SENASA, created differences where the enabling rule does not, thereby violating the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness, invoking for this purpose what was stated in constitutional vote No. 2004-14421 of the Constitutional Chamber. In this regard, it argues that: \\\"The CVO resembles a license more than a permit or an authorization. The jurisprudential doctrine of this same chamber has been clear in establishing that a permit is the state's consent to carry out an activity that is initially prohibited. Thus, the CVO could not, in principle, be subject to a permit because agricultural production and the marketing of the resulting products is a lawful activity that finds support in the business freedom enshrined in numeral 46 of the Political Constitution. An authorization is the enabling to carry out an activity which, although not prohibited, is at the Administration's discretion whether or not to carry out said activity. Finally, a license is a regulated authorization insofar as the parameters for its granting are previously fixed and it corresponds to the Administration only to verify its compliance. That is, the Administration cannot extend such parameters or give an interpretation that restricts the approval of said license. The CVO is clearly a license because it is granted for the public and open marketing, as opposed to closed or private marketing, of products derived from animals. However, the Administration cannot freely decide whether or not to grant it, as it is sufficient for the applicant to satisfy the requirements of Executive Decree No. 34859-MAG \\\"(...) for its approval. It is therefore a regulated power\\\". It mentions that notwithstanding the foregoing, applying Article 7 of the General Regulation for the Granting of the Veterinary Operation Certificate, which does not require it, it is ordered that the regent be a veterinarian. It argues that even in act SENASA-RCOC 145-2013, recourse is had to the expedient of invoking Article 106 of the Regulation to the Organic Law of the College of Veterinary Doctors, when the truth is that this rule is inapplicable, because it is a rule that imposes a duty but does not contemplate a sanction, this being a matter of legal reserve in accordance with Articles 9 and 11 of the Fundamental Charter and 6, 11, 19, and 59 of the LGAP. It argues that in any case, the regulatory rule issued within the framework of organic relations by a non-state public entity is not enforceable against the plaintiff here, and that in any case, the aforementioned Regulation dates from 1989 and Executive Decree No. 34859 is from 2008. It concludes this argument by saying that the Administration's procedural opportunity to present its arguments precluded with the issuance of the first act (DIPOA-A-112-11), \\\"(...) reason for which and in accordance with the principle of no prejudicial amendment, it lacks the possibility of putting forward new arguments in the resolution confirming a restrictive act. Said rule is not cited directly in SENASA-RCOC 129-2013 but in any case, it should be said that it would not be applicable to it either\\\". It alleges that the principle of reasonableness has been violated because the obligation imposed by Nombre20662 to have a veterinary regent does not comply with the trilogy of subprinciples that make up said principle (necessity, suitability, and proportionality). The foregoing, because: \\\"The first of them is that a rule must be necessary, that is, there must be a social cause that necessitates its appearance in the legal system. A rule should not come into legal life by mere whim of the legislator or whoever dictates it, but out of proven necessity. The second is that the rule be suitable, that is, that in qualitative terms it satisfies the reason that originated it, and finally, that it be proportional, that is, that from a quantitative perspective it manages to satiate the expectations and not exceed them; for example, when a rule establishes a restriction of fundamental rights in the face of a social problem, it must be verified that this restriction is the least burdensome for the administered party and their fundamental guarantees\\\". It affirms that with a food technologist, the safety of the sausage production process is adequately monitored, making the supervision of a veterinarian unnecessary, which could even affect the safety of the plant due to the constant contact the veterinarian has with live animals, which may carry diseases. It says that even if veterinary supervision were necessary and suitable, it is not proportional to require a veterinary regent, with Article 221 of the General Health Law needing to be interpreted by establishing the duty of the plaintiff's plant and all the plants to pay for external private audits to entities such as the Costa Rican Institute of Technical Standards (INTECO), thus safeguarding public health without unduly affecting the plaintiff's business activity and allowing it to retain its regent in food technology, who is indispensable. It ends by stating that the requirement made by Nombre20662 and questioned here becomes contrary to the principle of logicality, because it would imply that all butcher shops and supermarkets have a veterinary regent, since they make traditional sausages, their ground meat, and their own chorizo. It argues that the non-legal norms of the administrative act are violated, because the technical parameters to which the formal activity of the Administration must be subject in order to avoid deviations and abuses of power were disregarded, as established in Articles 15, 16, 17, and 160 LGAP, as well as the univocal norms of technique, science, logic, justice, experience, and common sense. It says that the principle of legal certainty and intangibility of one's own acts was also disregarded, invoking for this purpose recital VI of vote No. 051-2010 of the Sixth Section of this Tribunal. It argues that the same Dr.\n\nof Nombre145591 of Nombre20662 granted the CVO Registration Certificate with number Placa28947 in August 2009, valid until August 25, 2013, with a professional food technology regent, thereby endorsing the regent that was in place, later changing position, without any substantial regulatory change. In this way, Nombre20662 had \"(...) given external signs to presume the legality of our actions and is not authorized to arbitrarily 'change the rules of the game.' Thus, there is a violation of both the principle of legal certainty and that of 'no venire contra factum propium' derived from constitutional canon 34, a situation that imposes the need to invalidate the appealed acts.\" The presentation ends by stating that an improper interpretation was given of article 221 of the General Health Law, which is not harmonious with articles 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (protection and progress of fundamental guarantees); 5 of the Constitution (which imposes the duty to ensure the progress and development of the nation having as its north the well-being of the greatest number, having been required in this case a hermeneutic tending to the protection of the public interest and fundamental rights, which was not verified in this case, given that the Administration rather opted to give a prohibitive connotation to the norm, curtailing business freedom, which cannot be done except for reasons of public interest. It affirms that the interpretation carried out harms public health, by preferring a veterinarian over a food technologist, which affects the levels of safety and efficiency of the processes, \"(...) despite the fact that article 4 of the General Law of Nombre20662 indicates that in the interpretation of the norm, one must abide by what is most favorable for the human being, because well, what is most favorable is that a specialist be the regent of these food manufacturing processes for citizen consumption.// The interpretation given benefits no one more than the veterinarians themselves for whom a myriad of job options are created, but the rest of the population is negatively affected by this criterion. Not only is an exegesis contra homine given, but contra societas. As this is an integrating element of the motive for the contested acts, it is appropriate to declare their absolute nullity.\"\n\nNombre20662 answers the action negatively (folios 182-198 and 232-248), fundamentally arguing that the contested acts do not suffer from any nullity. It begins its presentation, outlining the constitutive elements of the administrative act, citing Nombre21604. Further on, it argues that the requirement for veterinary medical inspection for establishments dedicated to the slaughter or butchering of animals and the industrialization of meat foods, derives first from the provisions of article 221 of the General Health Law, developing the concept of veterinary medical inspection, in Executive Decree No. 29588-MAG-S of May 28, 2011, specifically in article 3, which defines the inspecting veterinarian (licensed veterinarian who has under his responsibility the technical and sanitary direction of the establishments regulated in that Regulation, encompassing the functions established in said regulatory body and in related legislation) and the official veterinarian (veterinarian official of the ministries of Agriculture and Health). It points out that this distinction between the concepts of inspecting veterinarian and official veterinarian, means that the interpretation of the plaintiff corporation, in the sense that veterinary inspection must be carried out by a public authority, must be discarded, given that the inspecting veterinarian must even have a constant presence in the product elaboration process, which is only possible if a regency is exercised in said establishment, according to the regulation carried out in articles 8 and 33 ejúsdem, even affirming that \"(...) the same Decree 29588-MAG-S indicates that the owners of establishments that are covered under this regulation, must have an office equipped and so forth (sic) for the Inspecting Veterinarian, it is because the same must be, clearly, an official distinct from the Official Veterinarians of this National Service or of any other authority of administrative rank.\" It continues arguing in the sense that the legal basis that protects Nombre20662 to request the contracting of a regent veterinarian, is in article 20 of the Decree ejúsdem, this provision being coherent with the content of articles 105 and 106 of the Regulation to the Law of the College of Veterinarians (Executive Decree No. 19184), which define the concept of regent veterinarian and establish the obligation for sausage factories and factories and processing plants for products and by-products of animal origin destined for human consumption. In accordance with the above, the contested acts are duly motivated, complying with all their constitutive elements. It then makes a lengthy consideration affirming that according to the profile of the veterinarian, he is the most suitable to regent a sausage processing establishment, concluding that while article 21, subsection h) of the Organic Law of the College of Chemical Engineers and Related Professionals (No. 8412), establishes that the members of that College must serve as consultants, advisors, experts, or responsible professionals in process industries, the veterinarian performs a fundamental task in the elaboration of products and by-products of animal origin, based on the occurrence of events such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), contamination with dioxins, and other diseases, given that in any case the veterinarian's work is not limited to the care and preservation of the health of live animals, but also to the preparation of sausages, as a matter of public health and safety of the foods consumed daily is at stake. In another order, it alleges that there is no administrative liability, of two types: without fault or due to special sacrifice or due to lack of service or abnormal functioning. It again cites the author Nombre21604, regarding the definition of lack of service or normal functioning, rejecting in passing that if the Public Administration does not realize said lack of service or abnormal functioning, the imposition of pecuniary liability is not possible, also pointing out, \"(...) that it has been eventually the Administrated who has placed himself in a condition of disadvantage by being non-compliant with objective norms, the same ones he was required to comply with and carry out any other actions that the legal System allowed him.\" It rejects the claim for the abstract cancellation of the amounts ceased to be received since August 25, 2013, because there is no proof whatsoever that demonstrates in a reliable manner the damages claimed, the requested petitionary extreme lacking evidentiary support.-\n\nThe State answers the action negatively (folios 201-231), arguing that although the plaintiff corporation was authorized by Nombre20662 to engage in the activity of storage and distribution of products of animal origin, the sanitary order issued on February 2, 2011, requiring it to hire a veterinary regent is in accordance with law, because according to the General Law of Nombre20662 (No. 8495 of April 6, 2006), there is a police power that empowers said body to require the Veterinary Operation Certificate (CVO). To this effect, it invokes numerals 5, 6 subsections b) and t), as well as articles 37, 38, 40, 59, 89 and 91 of the mentioned Law. It affirms that Nombre20662 holds a police power to guarantee the population compliance with the guarantee of protection to the right of health, being authorized to order and execute the sanitary measures it deems pertinent, even having the power to order the cancellation or suspension of the CVO, with the respective closure of the establishment, as well as any measure it deems pertinent. It indicates that according to subsections b) and c) of article 56 of the General Law of SENASA, establishments that elaborate, import, clear customs, fraction, store, transport, and sell products or by-products of animal origin, or that industrialize, package, refrigerate, process or sell at the wholesale level, products, by-products or derivatives of animals, for human or animal consumption, must have a CVO. Regarding the legal nature of the CVO, it says it is \"(...) the document granted by SENASA, by means of which authorization is made, so that the natural or legal person engages in the aforementioned activities. Said authorization obliges compliance with the sanitary requirements established by SENASA, to carry out the activity,\" according to article 57 ejúsdem, even being able to withdraw the CVO, if it is demonstrated that the duly established sanitary requirements are not met, according to the power set forth in numerals 58 and 59 of the SENASA Law. It argues that in the specific case of the plaintiff corporation, this company is dedicated to the storage and distribution of products of animal origin, its distribution and processing, in the sausage branch, and to carry out this activity must have the COV, finding this requirement, not only in the SENASA Law, but also in the General Health Law, the Sanitary and Veterinary Inspection Regulation for Slaughterhouses, Meat Production and Processing, the General Regulation for the Granting of the CVO, as well as the Regulation of the Organic Law of the College of Veterinarians. Regarding the General Health Law, it recalls that according to article 221, it is required that establishments dedicated to the industrialization of meat foods must have veterinary medical inspection approved by the Ministry, with numeral 229 prohibiting the trade or distribution of meat and derivatives coming from premises or establishments not authorized by the health authority or that operate without veterinary inspection. These provisions are consistent with the provisions of articles 20, subsection a), 3, 7, 8 and 78 of the Sanitary and Veterinary Inspection Regulation for Slaughterhouses; numerals 3.23, 6 and 7 of the General Regulation for the Granting of the CVO, as well as articles 105 and 106, subsection a). It argues that even when the sausage production process does not involve the handling or manipulation of live animals, veterinary medical inspection is required, as the Attorney General's Office itself has held, in its opinions C-071-2006. It argues that the plaintiff party makes a forced interpretation of article 221 of the General Health Law, also not explaining why the food technologist can replace the veterinarian and, even more so, on which norm this substitution is based. It says that the administrative acts issued (SENASA DIPOA-A-112-11, SENASA-RCOC 145-2013 and SENASA-RCOC 129-2013), do not violate the principles of prohibition of arbitrariness, reasonableness, legal certainty, intangibility of one's own acts, observance of the non-legal norms of the act, nor in any way are collective, public, and individual interests violated, but rather are based on the public interest, on the protection of public health and human life and the norms invoked above. It argues that official letter No. DIPOA-A-112-11 constitutes a preparatory act that supports the sanitary order issued, ordering the requesting company to include a regent veterinarian; that resolution No. SENASA-RCOC 145-2013 details the reasons that led to the issuance of the sanitary measure, having the necessary technical and legal basis; that resolution No. SENASA-RCOC 129-2013 decided to proceed with the update of the annual registration of the plaintiff company, because to operate the sausage plant, the presence of the regent veterinarian is required, said provision being accompanied by the regulatory and technical analysis, in accordance with the requirements of article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration. Further on, it is argued that in this case there is a failure to comply with the requirements for compensation for damages to proceed, in the specific case. The foregoing, because none of the requirements of ordinal 190 of the General Law of Public Administration are met, invoking to this effect vote No. 273-2012 of November 21, 2012, of the Sixth Section of this Tribunal. It affirms that it is essential that the alleged injury be an immediate and necessary consequence of the administrative action, a situation that does not occur in this case, given that in any case it is not established that there is damage that is effective, evaluable, and individualizable and not eventual or hypothetical. It argues that there is no cause-effect relationship between the specific manifestation of the administrative function and the unlawful injury that demonstrates that there is a repairable damage or harm, with no evidence provided that meets the requirements as demanded in articles 58 CPCA and 317 of the Civil Procedure Code. It also rejects that interest must be paid because first a specific amount must be granted in a final judgment, invoking to this effect vote No. 1072-2010 of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, also recalling that interest only proceeds when there are monetary obligations and not regarding obligations of value. It requests that the State not be condemned to pay personal and procedural costs, as the claim is inadmissible. It finalizes what is indicated in this brief stating that in accordance with article 8 of the General Law of the National Animal Health Service, No. 8495 of April 6, 2006, Nombre20662 is a body with minimum deconcentration and instrumental legal personality to carry out the competencies provided for in that law, having independence of criteria in its capacity as a technical body for the performance of its attributes. It argues that the acts questioned in this case were issued by Nombre20662 in the exercise of its exclusive legal powers, with the State having no participation or responsibility whatsoever in the facts. It argues that according to article 12, subsection c) CPCA and what has been said by jurisprudence (votes No. 1360-2010 of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and 251-2011 of the Sixth Section of this Tribunal), if the contested conduct comes from the exercise of some of its competencies attributed to the body with instrumental legal personality, the appropriate action is to declare the lack of right with respect to the State.-\n\nIV) Arguments given in file No. 13-8331-1027-CA: The plaintiff Nombre145586, in her claim brief (folios 365-396), fundamentally states that in her condition as a food technologist, the decision of Nombre20662 to demand the contracting of a regent veterinarian, has curtailed her possibility of continuing to be contracted as regent of the sausage factory owned by Embutidos Doro and that this is not only illegal, but has caused her economic harm. With similar arguments to those given in the company's claim, she states that the Administration's acts of forcing the hiring of a veterinarian as regent, not proceeding to update the annual CVO registration, are illegal and cause her a reflective harm, legitimizing her to appeal in court, to achieve the annulment of said acts and achieve reparation for the damages suffered. She affirms that once the decree regulating the granting of the CVO came into effect, a contractual relationship was formalized with Embutidos Doro, given that for a sausage manufacturing company to dismiss a food technology professional implies a material impossibility to carry out the industrial processes, this being the specialist in charge of the planning, execution, and supervision of those processes. She affirms that the principle of intangibility of one's own acts was violated because Dr. Nombre145591 authorized her contracting as a professional regent, she being a food technologist, having already endorsed the regent previously held and then, without justification, the criterion was changed although there was no substantial regulatory change, violating the provisions of constitutional article 34. Regarding the nullity of the contested administrative acts, she says that the situation must be returned to the state of affairs before the dismissal was decreed, the order to contract a veterinary regent must be withdrawn, and the immediate inscription and registration of the CVO must proceed.-\n\nNombre20662 answers the action negatively (folios 417-435), affirming that regarding the case of the co-plaintiff here, what the Administration has maintained is that plants that process sausages must have a regent veterinarian for their operation, authorizing in passing the substitution of the veterinarian for a food technologist, as was proven in an audit inspection carried out on February 2, 2011, which gave rise to the issuance of official letter No. DIPOA-A-112-11 of that date, in which three non-conformities were established, among them the requirement of a veterinarian as regent for the plant operation. It argues that no evidence whatsoever appears in the file in the sense that \"(...) the plaintiff party has been afflicted by the risk of being dismissed from her functions. Note also that in none of the administrative acts whose nullity is sought in this process, is it ordered, not in the least, that the plaintiff Nombre145586 must be dismissed from her functions, given that the decision to leave without effect the existing contract -if it occurred- is the responsibility of the contracting parties.\"\n\nThe State answers the action negatively (folios 406-416), opposing in the first place the defense of lack of active ad causam standing, given that if Mrs. Nombre145586 was contracted by Nombre145585 for the provision of professional services, that is, she was an employee of that corporation, she would not be legitimized to request the nullity of the actions that relate directly to the company and not to her in particular. Then, it opposes the defense of lack of right arguing that it is false that the actions of Nombre20662 are illegal and arbitrary, given that rather the actions are consistent with the provisions of the General Health Law\n\nV) In the preliminary hearing held in this Tribunal, on March 3 of this year, the different parties expressed the conclusions that are summarized below:\n\nConclusions of the co-plaintiffs: Embutidos Doro is a company responsible for stuffing previously processed meat. To be able to perform these functions, a CVO is needed, which was previously provided by the Ministry of Health, but as of 2006, is the competence of SENASA. By 2008, the requirement to appoint a regent or permanent advisor was requested. Then, officials Nombre6487 and Nombre139513 of SENASA, carried out an inspection, where the need to contract a veterinary regent was determined, in response to which appeals for revocation and a writ of amparo de legalidad and even this process were filed. It points out that Miss Nombre145586 performs the regency function being a food technologist, being adequate for the purposes of the norm, which is why the party disagrees with the contested acts.-\n\nConclusions of the State: The claim is inadmissible, because there is a legal basis to demand veterinary regency in establishments manufacturing sausages. It points out that article 221 of the General Health Law, clearly and without margin for interpretation establishes that a veterinarian is required. Then, the Regulation to the Law of the College of Veterinarians (numeral 106, subsection a), clearly establishes the participation of veterinarians in the regency in establishments that process sausages. In the same way, the Sanitary and Veterinary Inspection Regulation for Slaughterhouses, Meat Production and Processing, Executive Decree No. 29588, in its article 20, subsection a) does so.-\n\nThere is no doubt whatsoever that an establishment of the nature of the plaintiff requires the regency of a veterinarian. There is also a technical basis, because veterinarians are the only ones who can guarantee the safety of meat foods. No nullity is noticed, there is no invalidity whatsoever. The way in which said norms can be disapplied is not accredited, nor why a technologist can assume that function.\n\nIt is affirmed that Mrs. Nombre145586 does not have active standing to challenge the mentioned administrative acts, because although she claims to have been an \"employee\" of Nombre145585, she does not demonstrate the harm caused. The payment of damages is requested, because what the damages consist of is not clarified, given that at no time has Nombre20662 closed the establishment, proof in this sense being on folio 89. It must be made clear that in this file, the request for a precautionary measure was rejected as inadmissible. According to article 8 of the SENASA Law, it has instrumental legal personality and in this case, it acted in the exercise of its competencies, therefore, in the event that any extreme of the claim regarding that body is accepted, it requests that the claim be declared without merit regarding the State.-\n\nConclusions of Nombre20662: It affirms that the contested acts are indeed duly factually and legally motivated. It cites the same norms mentioned by the State's representation, to support the need for the processing of sausage establishments to be carried out by veterinarians. Article 3 of the General Regulation for the Granting of the Veterinary Operation Certificate establishes the difference between the inspecting veterinarian and the inspecting veterinarian\n\nVeterinarians are the ideal professionals to attend not only to live animals, but also to dead animals, because they can detect the existence of diseases, bacteria, and medications that can be harmful to human health.\n\nRegarding damages, no proof whatsoever of their existence has been provided, given that even the closure of the company has not been carried out by the authorities and if the company has closed it has been by decision of its owners. It points out that at this moment operations are being carried out with a veterinarian.\n\nIt says that the indicated administrative decisions are duly based on article 89 of the SENASA Law.\n\nIt requests that the claim be dismissed and that the parties be ordered to pay both sets of costs of the action.-
VI) ON THE MERITS: Legal regime for authorization of the sausage production activity: The Court considers that in the exercise of sanitary police power, the activity of sausage production and storage is subject to an administrative authorization (autorización) regime, under the competence of Nombre20662, with a mandatory requirement to obtain that authorization being the oversight (regencia) performed by a veterinarian for each of the establishments that carry out these activities.-
This conclusion is reached from the reading and relationship of the norms indicated below, which regulate: (a) the obligation to have the administrative authorization (autorización) and the body responsible for granting it, and (b) the veterinary oversight (regencia) as an indispensable requirement to issue the Certificado Veterinario de Operación (CVO):
a) Obligation to have administrative authorization (autorización) for the production of sausages, exclusive competence of Nombre20662: This derives from what is prescribed in Article 221 of the Ley General de Salud (Ley N° 5395 of February 24, 1974), as well as from the Ley General de Salud Animal (Ley N° 8495 of April 6, 2006), in its numerals 5, 6, subsections j), ñ) and o), 56 subsections b) and c), 57 and 58, which we also cite below:
\"ARTICULO 221.- Establishments dedicated to the slaughter or butchering of animals and to the industrialization of meat-based foods of different species, intended for consumption by the population, must also have veterinary medical inspection approved by the Ministry.
The same requirement applies to factories and processing plants for animal-origin products.\"
\"Artículo 5º-Competent body. The Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG), through Senasa, shall be responsible for the regulation, planning, administration, coordination, execution, and application of official activities at the national, regional, and international levels, relating to the health of the animal population, residues, veterinary public health, veterinary control of zoonoses, traceability/tracking, the protection and safety of animal-origin foods, animal feed, veterinary medications, animal genetic material, products and by-products, the production, use, release, or marketing of genetically modified organisms that may affect animal health or its environment, and dangerous substances of animal origin.\"
\"Artículo 6º-Competences. Nombre20662 shall have the following competences:
j) To control and guarantee the health of domestic, aquatic, wild, or other animals of different species, as well as the safety (inocuidad) of products, by-products, and derivatives for human or animal consumption, and to establish sanitary controls in all slaughter, processing, and industrialization plants.
ñ) To establish criteria for the authorization (autorización) of natural and legal persons for each specific activity, the responsibilities assumed, and their limitations.
o) To establish quality control and technical audit procedures, both for Nombre20662 itself and for the officialized or authorized natural and legal persons; likewise, to ensure the administration, control, and use of the resources obtained when applying this Ley.\"
\"Artículo 56.- Establishments subject to control. Nombre20662 shall grant or withdraw the Certificado Veterinario de Operación to the following establishments:
(...) b) Those that produce, import, clear from customs, fraction, store, transport, and sell animal-origin products and by-products.
c) Those intended for the slaughter of animals or that industrialize, package, refrigerate, process, or sell, at the wholesale level, animal products, by-products, or derivatives, for human or animal consumption. (...)\"
\"Artículo 57.-Certificado Veterinario de Operación. Certificado Veterinario de Operación shall be understood as the document issued by Senasa, through which the authorization (autorización) is recorded, so that the requesting natural or legal person may engage in one or more of the activities mentioned in Article 56 of this Ley.
A single certificate may indicate the authorization to perform different activities; it shall be requested and granted only once and shall not need to be renewed, as long as the sanitary requirements are constantly met.
Said authorization shall imply compliance with the sanitary requirements established by Senasa to carry out the activity.\"
In the above sense, it is noted that even the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has considered that, as of the entry into force of Ley N° 8495, the power to issue sanitary authorizations (autorizaciones) for establishments that slaughter animals, or process and market meat products, and of course, produce and market sausages, is the exclusive competence of SENASA, displacing in that area the competence of the Ministry of Health to issue sanitary operating permits (permisos sanitarios de funcionamiento) for that type of establishment. Thus, in Considerando III of Voto Nº 2012-01965 of nine hours and thirty-one minutes of February 17, 2012, it was stated: \"As can be seen from reading this entire set of formal legal norms, the legislator structured a control and surveillance system under the responsibility of the Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal with the aim of ensuring a degree of protection for society.- In this way, it designed not only the structure that provides the service but also the existence of an equivalent to the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) called Certificado Veterinario de Operación (Article 57 of the Ley) that all the establishments specified in numeral 56 of said legal body must have\".-
In any case, it should be remembered that the jurisprudence of this Court (see Considerando VI of Voto N° 163-2012-VI of 14:20 hours of August 20, 2012, of the Sixth Section (Sección Sexta)), has conceptualized (and differentiated) the concepts of authorization (autorización), permit (permiso), and license (licencia) as follows \"(...) Authorization (autorización) can be defined as the removal of a legal obstacle for the exercise of a required conduct. In turn, permit (permiso) consists of the administrative enablement for the development of a conduct, in principle prohibited. While license (licencia) consists of an authorization of strictly regulated content\" (underlining added), it being possible to affirm, in accordance with the above, that the Certificado Veterinario de Operación is a permit (permiso), understood as the administrative enablement for the development of a conduct in principle prohibited, due to the risk that the production and storage of sausages implies for the health and life of animals and humans. A consequence of the conceptualization of the CVO as a permit (permiso) is that the administrative act granting it is composed not only of strictly regulated acts but also of discretionary elements, with the Administration having the ability to even deny the granting of the permit (permiso), even when the requirements are met, if despite that, said act affects the legal interests mentioned so many times.-
b) Veterinary oversight (regencia) as an indispensable requirement to issue the Certificado Veterinario de Operación (CVO): It is also the criterion of this Court that for the issuance of the CVO, it is indispensable that a veterinarian be appointed as the regente in the corresponding establishment, it being legally impossible for the participation of veterinarians to be substituted by other professionals, even if they are a food technologist, as is the plaintiff Nombre145586. This conclusion is reached from the reading of numerals 3, 7, and 8 of the Reglamento Sanitario y de Inspección Veterinaria de Mataderos, Producción y Procesamiento de Carnes (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29588-MAG-S of May 28, 2001), as well as Articles 105 and 106, subsections a) and c) of the Reglamento a la Ley del Colegio de Médicos Veterinarios (19184 of July 10, 1989), which, as pertinent, state:
\"Artículo 3º-
The words, names, terms, and phrases used in the provisions of this regulation shall be understood as follows: (...)
Inspector Veterinarian:
Professional in Veterinary Medicine incorporated into the Colegio de Médicos Veterinarios, who is under his/her responsibility the technical and sanitary direction of the establishments regulated herein, encompassing the functions assigned by this regulation and other related legislation.\"
\"Artículo 7º-
The establishments that shall be subject to the provisions of this regulation are: those dedicated to slaughtering, deboning, sausage-making, packaging, storage, processing, retail sale, as well as vehicles for transporting meat from bovine, caprine, equine, ovine, porcine species, and others authorized by MAG and MS.\"
\"Artículo 8º-
To monitor the safety (inocuidad) of meat products, these shall be subjected to organoleptic tests performed by the Inspector Veterinarian and his team of inspection assistants, and to physical, chemical, and microbiological tests performed in situ or in official laboratories or duly accredited laboratories for this purpose.\"
\"Artículo 105.-Regente is understood to mean the professional, member of the Colegio de Médicos Veterinarios, who, in accordance with the legislation, assumes the technical, scientific direction and professional responsibility for any of the establishments mentioned in the following article.
Artículo 106.-The establishments that must be regentados or technically and scientifically directed by a veterinarian are:
a) Factories and plants producing animal-origin products and by-products intended for human population consumption. (...)
c) Establishments dedicated to the slaughter or butchering of animals, processing, and industrialization of meat-based foods of different species, without prejudice to the competence of zootechnical agricultural engineers in the fields of processing and industrialization.\" (underlining not in the original)
In accordance with the norms indicated above, the argument is not admissible that, under Article 21, subsection h) of the Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Ingenieros Químicos y Profesionales Afines, N° 8412 of April 22, 2004, which establishes that: \"Active or emeritus members of the Colegio shall have the following offices and competences:// h) To serve as consultant, advisor, expert, or responsible professional in process industries\", an affiliated professional incorporated into that professional corporation, that is, a food technologist, can serve as regente of an establishment intended for the manufacture of sausages, because there exists a norm of legal rank, and even later in its entry into force (those of the Ley General de Salud Animal), which establishes that this professional task is the proper domain of the veterinarian.-
VII) Analysis of the claims of Nombre145585 : Given the above framework regarding the authorization (autorización) regime for the sausage manufacturing activity, we will refer to the claims and arguments presented by the parties:
First, second, and third claims: In which the nullity of official letters DIPO-A-112-11, SENASA-RCOC 145-2013 of October 10, 2013, and SENASA-RCOC 129-2013 of September 12, 2013, is requested, questioning further, it having been indicated that the annual registration update of our CVO would not be processed, ordering instead the immediate annual registration of the Certificado Veterinario de Operación.-
These claims are not admissible according to this Court, for the reasons indicated below: 1) The requirement to have a veterinarian overseeing (regencia), is determined by the authorization (autorización) regime for the sausage manufacturing and storage activity, as indicated in the preceding considerando. It must also be stated that the fact that there was oversight (regencia) by a food technology professional, based on Ley N° 8412, cannot substitute for the participation of veterinarians; 2) Nor is the argument admissible that, prior to the issuance of these administrative acts, it had been accepted that a food technologist, and under those conditions, the Certificado Veterinario de Operación was issued and kept valid, because that irregular situation cannot prevail against an express norm that establishes the legal obligation to have a veterinarian, even constituting a violation of the principle of singular non-derogability (inderogabilidad singular) of the norm. Likewise, from the fact that before the sanitary order of February 2, 2009, it was tolerated that the oversight (regencia) was not performed by a veterinarian, but by another professional, it does not follow that this situation cannot be corrected, as was effectively done; 3) The position of the plaintiff cannot be accepted either, in the sense that it was not taken into account that the sausage production plant does not work with live animals, but with meat acquired from authorized slaughterhouses, given that in accordance with Article 56 of the Ley del SENASA, the control involves not only establishments where live animals are handled, but also involves the transformation processes into sausages, as well as their storage and distribution; 4) It must also be said that the legal obligation to have a veterinarian regente in no way prevents the activity that a food technologist may carry out, as a professional incorporated into the Colegio de Ingenieros Químicos y Profesionales Afines, to perform functions in a process industry (as sausage manufacturing would eventually be), in accordance with Article 21, subsection h) of Ley N° 8412, but only implies that the veterinarian cannot be substituted by another professional who handles another branch of knowledge and is incorporated into another professional association, for the functions that are technically and legally proper to them; 5) The principles of reasonableness and proportionality are not violated by the regulatory interpretation made by SENASA regarding the content of the Ley General de Salud and the Ley General de Salud Animal, nor was the decision made arbitrarily, but rather it was done at all times in accordance with the legal text and seeking the effective protection of the public interest, which is precisely to guarantee the safety (inocuidad) of animal-origin products intended for human consumption; thus, the interpretation was also made in compliance with the fundamental guarantees in favor of consumer rights, established in Article 46 of the Constitution.
\n\nIn this case, the administrative authority's invocation of an executive decree (the Regulation of the Organic Law of the College of Veterinary Physicians, Executive Decree No. 19184 of July 10, 1989), in resolutions SENASA-RCOC-145-2013 and SENASA-DG-AJ-079-2013, is correct, because that regulatory body develops the concept of a veterinary physician inspector or manager (regente) of a given establishment intended for the transformation of products of animal origin, and that provision is even concordant with articles 56 and 57 of Law No. 8495 of April 6, 2006, which was issued subsequently; 6) It is not true that the regulatory interpretation establishing that the manager (regente) of the establishments must necessarily be a veterinary physician and that this is an indispensable requirement for the issuance of the Veterinary Operation Certificate is contrary to the principle of reasonability and its sub-principles (necessity, suitability, and proportionality), given that it is necessary, suitable, and completely proportionate to the case to require the participation of a professional with specialized knowledge in animal health and the effects animal health can have on human health, in an activity that can seriously affect people's health and lives, it being unreasonable rather that this professional be substituted by another who does not have specialized knowledge in that matter; 7) Regarding the argument that the requirement is not reasonable because it would imply having a veterinary manager for all butcher shops and supermarkets, because they make local sausages, ground meat, and chorizo, being contrary to the principle of logic, this must also be rejected because this abstract situation is not being judged in this case file (expediente); rather, what is being analyzed here is the specific situation of a sausage factory owned by the plaintiff company, in a specific place and with its own characteristics; 8) It is also not true that the challenged acts were issued disregarding the rules of science or technique (doctrine of article 16 of the General Law of Public Administration), because what is set forth in administrative acts SENASA-RCOC 145-2013 of October 10, 2013, and SENASA-RCOC 129-2013 of September 12, 2013, clarifies the technical and scientific reasons why the veterinary physician is the most suitable to guarantee animal and human health and food safety; 9) It is also not true that the Administration's opportunity to sufficiently justify the acts contrary to the plaintiff company's claims was precluded after the issuance of the sanitary order of February 2, 2002; rather, the extensive argumentation given in acts SENASA-RCOC-145-2013 and SENASA-DG-AJ-079-2013 adequately responds to the questions raised by the plaintiff through appeals; thus, it was necessary to argue in the manner done, no regulatory violation being observed, nor any infringement of due process or the right of defense; 10) The power to withdraw the Veterinary Operation Certificate when any requirement for its maintenance is missing derives from the application of article 58 of Law No. 8495, which provides: \"El Nombre20662 may withdraw the veterinary operation certificate if it determines, after a prior inspection, that the establishment does not meet the sanitary requirements established for the authorized activities. In case the certificate is withdrawn, the interested party must request it again,\" for which reason the third claim of the plaintiff company must be denied; 11) Finally, the Tribunal considers that the regulatory application being challenged here is contrary to business freedom or to article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (progressiveness of fundamental guarantees), because establishing a requirement such as the medical veterinary management (regencia médica veterinaria) prior to issuing the Veterinary Operation Certificate does not curtail that freedom, but rather harmonizes it with interests of a superior nature, namely the health and life of the population.-\n\nFourth and fifth claims: They must be dismissed for one reason: it was not verified that the sausage manufacturing establishment was at any time closed due to the order to have a veterinary medical management to obtain the Veterinary Operation Certificate, the damage for which compensation is sought not being verified in that manner.-\n\nVIII) Analysis of the claims of Nombre145586 : If the claims of Ms. Nombre145586 are observed, it is noted that they derive from those brought by Embutidos Doro. The foregoing is because Ms. Nombre145586 has the profession of food technologist duly registered with the College of Chemical Engineers and Related Professionals and had a management contract (contrato de regencia) with said company, duly registered with the corresponding professional corporation, and her interests would have been harmed when it was ordered that, to maintain the validity of the Veterinary Operation Certificate, a veterinary medical management must be registered. Also, the arguments presented by said person are basically the same as those presented by the co-plaintiff company, and her claims must suffer the same fate, in which the annulment of the same administrative acts is requested, also requesting that food technology professionals be allowed to exercise said management (regencia). Based on the reasons given above, the claims of an annulment nature must be rejected, as well as the petitionary conclusion aimed at allowing food technology professionals to exercise management (regencia) in sausage production establishments, fulfilling the requirements of the Veterinary Operation Certificate, because, as we have seen, the authorization to act as manager (regente) given in article 21, subsection h) of Law No. 8412, cannot technically or legally substitute the participation of the veterinary physician. In any case, the fact that registration with the College of Veterinary Physicians was required did not determine any damage for Ms. Nombre145586, because it was not even proven that this situation led to her dismissal by the company; rather, one might think she could have continued working for it, performing her work as a food technologist, within the scope of her specialized knowledge. As there is no proven relationship between the requirement of registration with the College of Veterinary Physicians and any harm to the plaintiff Nombre145586 , the exception of lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam activa) must be upheld.-\n\nIX) Analysis of the exceptions and award of costs: Regarding the State: The State's representation is correct when it affirms that the administrative resolutions issued by Nombre20662 in this case were issued within the scope of its own competencies derived from the General Law of the National Animal Health Service, No. 8495 of April 6, 2006, and that for this reason, according to the instrumental legal personality attributed to that body with minimal deconcentration (desconcentración mínima), the lawsuit regarding the State must be dismissed for lacking passive standing (legitimación ad causam pasiva). The foregoing is affirmed because the plaintiffs jointly sued the larger entity (the State) and the body with deconcentration and instrumental legal personality (SENASA), as mandated by article 12, subsection c) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, with the claims made even directed at the annulment of the deconcentrated body. Due to the foregoing, as the action of no centralized State body is directly questioned, the exception of lack of passive standing (legitimación ad causam pasiva) must be upheld and the lawsuit dismissed in all its aspects regarding the State. Due to the way it is resolved, a ruling is omitted on the exceptions of lack of right regarding the lawsuits filed by Nombre145585 and Nombre145586 , as well as the exception of lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam activa), regarding the action of this latter person. Given that the action was brought against the State, as mandated by law, it is found that there was sufficient motive to litigate, placing us in one of the hypotheses for exemption from the award of costs for both plaintiffs in favor of the State (article 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code), and it must be resolved in this manner.-\n\nRegarding Nombre20662 : In accordance with the reasons given in the previous recitals (considerandos), the defense of lack of right regarding the action of Nombre145585 must be upheld and the lawsuit declared without merit. The exceptions of lack of active and passive standing (legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva) must also be upheld regarding the lawsuit of Nombre145586 , as there is no effective harm from the challenged administrative actions within the scope of her legal sphere, and her action must be declared inadmissible.-\n\nBoth co-plaintiffs having been defeated in this matter by SENASA, they must be ordered to pay said deconcentrated body both costs of the action, there being no circumstance for exemption, as established in the aforementioned rule.-\n\nTherefore:\n\n1) The exception of lack of passive standing (legitimación ad causam pasiva) raised by the State is upheld, and the lawsuits brought by both plaintiffs are declared inadmissible regarding the first. Due to the way it is resolved, a ruling is omitted on the exceptions of lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam activa) that were raised by the entity. Both plaintiffs are exempted from the payment of both costs in favor of the State; 2) The exceptions of lack of active and passive standing (legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva) raised against the action of Nombre145586 are upheld, and the lawsuit is also declared inadmissible regarding her; the exception of lack of right raised against the action of the plaintiff company is upheld. Consequently, the lawsuits of Nombre145585 , Limitada against the National Animal Health Service are declared without merit in all their aspects. The co-plaintiffs are ordered to pay the personal and procedural costs in favor of the deconcentrated body.-\n\n\n\n\n\n\nJonatán Canales Hernández\n\n\n\nRosa María Cortés Morales Paulo André Alonso Soto \n \n " }