Amparo De Legalidad En Costa Rica

II.- The applicant puts forward two pleas in law. In the first censorship, he accuses a violation of legal force. Stresses that, in ruling on the personal costs of enforcing the judgment, the Court is part of a “false main premise” that the protection of legality is a matter for ordinary legality, and paraphrases the Constitutional Chamber, but considers that the Chamber has never made statements to equate the protection of legality with ordinary administrative dispute. He does not agree that this legal consideration is due only to a conceptual error and an assessment of what has been said by the Constitutional Chamber. He cites a judgment of the Constitutional Court in support of his argument. ensures that all amparo appeals relating to the violation of the constitutional right of petition and immediate reply enshrined in paragraphs 27 and 41 of the Political Constitution have been excluded from the competence of the Constitutional Chamber to be dealt with in the contested administrative jurisdiction, which is justiciable in the Rules of Procedure for Contested Administrative Procedures (hereinafter CPCA), the legal institutions necessary for the protection of these rights, as the Constitutional Chamber did in the absence of these provisions, which entered into force in January 2008. However, this does not mean that the protection of legality is an ordinary process and, as such, costs must be regulated according to this parameter. He believes that the Amparo de Legalidad is a figure who, because it is a substitute for amparo`s constitutional vocation, receives this title. Therefore, he points out, there is a serious contradiction between what the Court has confirmed and what the Constitutional Chamber has said, so that the legal system cannot be integrated by a “legal idea” that cannot even be inferred from the decision of the Constitutional Chamber.

In this way, he says, ordinals 138 (a), (b) and (c) of the CPCA are violated. In the second complaint, it refers to Article 16(a) of the tariff for legal professionals for the determination of personal expenses. Because of the erroneous assessment of the constitutional test, the judge denigrates the work of the lawyer and invokes the fact that no legal assistance is required for the amparo of legality processes. It is not possible to cancel the work of the professional who provided his services to carry out the process in question. He adds that the protection of legality or preferential procedure is invaluable and constitutes an epidemic that must manifest itself. It considers that the present proceedings cannot be of a determinable amount, since it is apparent from the application in the main proceedings that they are of an invaluable amount without objection on the part of the defendant; Therefore, at the stage of enforcement of the sentence, the executing judge cannot confirm that there is an amount per amount, since it is at this stage that the amounts awarded in the abstract are regulated. The judge had to apply Article 19 of Executive Decree No. 39078-JP, which provides for a minimum amount of 220,000.00¢ for professional scholarships in case of an invaluable amount. However, since the Amparo of legality has a similarity with the remedy of Amparo, it is possible to use as a parameter the provisions of canon 46 idem, which sets a minimum fee of ¢ 165,000.00.

Before the Constitutional Chamber was asked to deal with cases of legality of amparos, this function was delegated in 2008 to the disputed administrative court, which is responsible for hearing acts or omissions of procedures or acts of the public administration. Protection of legality is granted when a complaint is made to an administration or when a very specific request is made and no response is received within the time limit set by the General Law of Public Administration or by special laws. I.- In the legality proceedings against the State initiated by Mr. Marvin Gerardo Ramírez Rojas, the Court ruled in Resolution No. 2540-2017 of 11 hours 30 minutes of 19 October 2017: “The appeal is declared MIT PLACE for compensatory purposes, understood as rejected, which is not expressly granted. The State is ordered to pay the damage caused and to cancel the two costs of this appeal; which is determined in the context of subsequent enforcement proceedings. […]”. On June 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed an application for enforcement of the judgment of this order, requiring: 1- The payment of ¢ 200,000.00 for non-pecuniary damage.

3- The sum of ¢ 200,000.00 for amparo`s personal expenses and execution. The representation of the State refused. The executing judge found that the alleged conduct had been omitted. It stated that the application should be made in part. It ordered the State to pay 50,000.00¢ for the non-pecuniary damages and 10,000.00¢ for the costs of the Amparo proceedings. The plaintiff appealed in cassation. If an official of the Ministry of Public Instruction submits an administrative complaint or requests an update of the professional career or pension studies and does not complete within 2 months, he files a complaint in legality and demands the immediate settlement of his procedure in order to protect the right of petition and immediate response. Next, you will learn the details of how an “amparo de legalidad” works. It must be understood that the protection of legality does not guarantee a positive response, but that the administration reacts.

The amparo of legality must be submitted to the disputed Administrative and Civil Finance Court. If the Ministry of Public Education is asked to ask him for an administrative right, a pension study or a professional career update and this is not answered within 2 months, an amparo of legality will be created for the immediate response of the institution. Similarly, it is important that a copy of the management made before the administration is presented (as evidence) that has not received a response and that has produced amparo. The Amparo of legality is a summary procedure submitted to the disputed administrative court in order to request the immediate settlement of a claim or a delay in the procedure by administrative means of the public administration. The Amparo of Legality is in some respects similar to the appeal for Amparo presented to the Constitutional Chamber. V.- In the present case, what the casacionist party opposed revolves around the quantification of the personal expenses paid during the execution phase; However, before analyzing the detected censorship, it is necessary to specify the following.