{
  "id": "case-02-003124-0007-co",
  "citation": "Exp. 02-003124-0007-CO",
  "section": "case_summaries",
  "doc_type": "case_summary",
  "title_es": "Definición del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado",
  "title_en": "Definition of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional, mediante el Voto 2181-2002, establece que el artículo 50 constitucional protege no solo el ambiente como obvio, sino un ambiente que goce de determinadas características de equilibrio ecológico. La Sala define el ambiente como un conjunto de elementos (naturales, artificiales o inducidos por el hombre, físicos, químicos, biológicos y socioculturales) que constituyen un verdadero sistema. Aclara que el derecho no es simplemente a la protección del ambiente, sino a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, lo que implica consideraciones cualitativas. Esta interpretación refuerza la legitimación para defender el ambiente, al determinar que el interés difuso que protege el numeral 50 no es un derecho subjetivo individual, sino un interés general y legítimo tutelable por el amparo, aunque no exista daño directo a la persona.",
  "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber, through Ruling 2181-2002, establishes that Article 50 of the Constitution protects not just the obvious environment, but an environment that enjoys specific characteristics of ecological balance. The Chamber defines the environment as a set of elements (natural, artificial or human-induced, physical, chemical, biological, and sociocultural) that form a genuine system. It clarifies that the right is not simply to environmental protection, but to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which implies qualitative considerations. This interpretation reinforces standing to defend the environment, by determining that the diffuse interest protected by Article 50 is not an individual subjective right, but a general and legitimate interest enforceable through the amparo remedy, even without direct damage to the individual.",
  "court_or_agency": "",
  "date": "",
  "year": "",
  "topic_ids": [
    "art-50-constitution"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "art-50-constitution",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado",
    "interés difuso",
    "legitimación",
    "recurso de amparo",
    "artículo 50 constitucional",
    "sistema unitario"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Artículo 50",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "ambiente sano",
    "equilibrio ecológico",
    "artículo 50 constitucional",
    "interés difuso",
    "legitimación",
    "recurso de amparo",
    "Sala Constitucional",
    "derecho ambiental"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "healthy environment",
    "ecological balance",
    "article 50 constitution",
    "diffuse interest",
    "standing",
    "amparo remedy",
    "Constitutional Chamber",
    "environmental law"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "III.-... debe entenderse que el artículo 50 constitucional protege un ambiente que goce de determinadas características que lo hagan apto para el desenvolvimiento de la persona, por eso es que la Sala ha señalado que la protección no es del ambiente como ente obvio, pues éste siempre existe, sino del ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado..., y que lo que se protege es el conjunto de elementos –naturales, artificiales o inducidos por el hombre, físicos, químicos, biológicos y socioculturales– que constituyen un verdadero sistema, precisamente por su carácter unitario.\n\n...determinar que el interés difuso –legitimador que protege el numeral 50 constitucional–, lo es para el ambiente en su sentido sistémico o unitario, y que no se trata de un derecho subjetivo, sino de un interés general y legítimo, tutelable, por el amparo...",
  "excerpt_en": "III.-... it must be understood that Article 50 of the Constitution protects an environment that enjoys certain characteristics that make it suitable for human development, which is why the Chamber has stated that the protection is not of the environment as an obvious entity, since it always exists, but of the healthy and ecologically balanced environment..., and that what is protected is the set of elements –natural, artificial or human-induced, physical, chemical, biological, and sociocultural– that form a genuine system, precisely because of its unitary nature.\n\n...determine that the diffuse interest –standing protected by Article 50 of the Constitution– applies to the environment in its systemic or unitary sense, and that it is not a subjective right, but a general and legitimate interest, enforceable through the amparo remedy...",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Granted",
    "label_es": "Con lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber partially granted the remedy, reaffirming that the environment protected by Article 50 is the healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and that diffuse interest allows amparo without direct individual injury.",
    "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional acogió parcialmente el recurso, reafirmando que el ambiente protegido por el artículo 50 es el ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y que el interés difuso permite el amparo sin lesión directa individual."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "The protection is not of the environment as an obvious entity, since it always exists, but of the healthy and ecologically balanced environment.",
      "quote_es": "La protección no es del ambiente como ente obvio, pues éste siempre existe, sino del ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "What is protected is the set of elements –natural, artificial or human-induced, physical, chemical, biological, and sociocultural– that form a genuine system, precisely because of its unitary nature.",
      "quote_es": "Lo que se protege es el conjunto de elementos –naturales, artificiales o inducidos por el hombre, físicos, químicos, biológicos y socioculturales– que constituyen un verdadero sistema, precisamente por su carácter unitario."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "The diffuse interest –standing protected by Article 50 of the Constitution– applies to the environment in its systemic or unitary sense, and it is not a subjective right, but a general and legitimate interest, enforceable through the amparo remedy.",
      "quote_es": "El interés difuso –legitimador que protege el numeral 50 constitucional–, lo es para el ambiente en su sentido sistémico o unitario, y que no se trata de un derecho subjetivo, sino de un interés general y legítimo, tutelable, por el amparo."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-218110",
        "kind": "case_sentence",
        "label": "Ver texto del voto"
      }
    ],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/asunto_cons/asu_asunto_const.aspx?param1=ASC&nValor1=1&param5=02-003124-0007-CO&strTipM=E&strAsunto=norma",
  "tier": 2,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 1,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "",
  "body_en_text": "**Constitutional Chamber Case Summary**\n\n**File:** 02-003124-0007-CO\n\n**Nexus Document:** Ver texto del voto\n\n**Summaries of unconstitutionality consultations (votos de constitucionalidad)**\n\n**File 02-003124-0007-CO**\n\nConsultation presented by the Civil Administrative and Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone to determine the constitutionality of Articles 19, 27 paragraphs a, b, c, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 57, 68, and 69 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal). These articles regulate the rational use of forest lands and the system of forest land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), determining which lands are apt for agricultural and livestock activities, establishing environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) prior to land-use change in areas covered by forest (cobertura boscosa), and regulating the permits, authorizations, and concessions for logging in forests and other wooded lands on private property. The consultation is based on the fact that, in the filer's criteria, the norm violates the right to property by intensively restricting what the owner can do with their forested land, subordinating the right to property to the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but without compensating the owner for the limitations imposed. It is argued that biodiversity and forests constitute a public good whose conservation burdens private property owners at their own cost, constituting a deprivation of property for public utility without any compensation, thereby violating the constitutional guarantees of Articles 45 and 50 of the Political Constitution and other related norms. It also alleges a violation of the principle of reasonableness (principio de razonabilidad). The Constitutional Chamber dismissed the consultation and declared the consulted norms constitutional based on the following grounds: a) the forest is an ecosystem composed of natural elements of common utility and diffuse interest that form the forest resource, which is part of the national natural heritage subject to a special protective regime, regardless of whether the land where it is located is public or private, and it performs a social and environmental function; b) there is no absolute and unlimited right to property, since ownership demands responsibility, where the concept of the social and environmental function of property constitutes a limit to the exercise of the powers of use, enjoyment, and disposition: c) the promotion of sustainable development is a fundamental objective of the State and the very essence of the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, a task that legitimizes the regulation of private initiative, human freedom, and economic activities; d) the regime of use, management, and conservation of forests and forest lands provided for in the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) does not entail an expropriatory measure lacking compensation in violation of Articles 45 and 50 of the Political Constitution, since the limitations on the right to property it imposes are required by the nature of the goods and the social and environmental function they fulfill; e) not all forest land can be incorporated into forestry production, so the regime established by law does not impose a sacrifice on the owner, as technical criteria determine forest management. The owner cannot claim a supposed violation of the essential content of the right to property, since a significant percentage of the national territory is under the Special Forestry Regime (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), so the legislator was obliged to regulate private property forests in such a way that they fulfill the environmental characteristics inherent to them; f) the requirement for environmental impact assessment (EIA) and land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) subjects the exercise of the right to property to reasonableness through prior technical criteria; therefore, the environmental public interest prevails over the private interest of the owner; g) by virtue of the principle of sustainable development, economic development harmonizes with environmental protection. The Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and the set of related regulations provide a fair balance between forest conservation and the possibility of exploitation by the owner (logging permits and concessions as well as the Payment for Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA)). Consequently, the norm does not violate the principle of reasonableness (principio de razonabilidad). Magistrates Calzada, Vargas, and Jinesta set joint separate votes and save the vote considering that the consultation should have been dismissed due to a defect in its formulation, since the specific articles whose constitutionality is doubted were not exhaustively detailed."
}