Full Case Name:  Decision N.°0507-12-EP, 2015 Shrimp Farm in Cayapas - Ecuador

Share |
Country of Origin:  Ecuador Court Name:  Constitutional Court of Peru Primary Citation:  CAUSA No. 0507-12-EP Date of Decision:  Wednesday, May 20, 2015 Judge Name:  Wendy Molina Andrade Docket Num:  Expediente No. 0507-12-EP
Summary: In this case, the defendant, the Ministry of the Environment, appeals decisions from the lower court concerning the plaintiff's shrimp farm. The farm was located on a nature reserve, and the plaintiff sued for protective action, arguing that the Ministry's administrative resolution ordering the closing of the farm violated his property rights and due process. The lower court held in favor of the shrimp farm. The Ministry subsequently filed an Extraordinary Writ of Protection with the Constitutional Court, held that the lower court's decision had infringed upon the defendant's right to due process, invalidated the lower court's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Documents:  PDF icon Ecuador_2015_shrimp_farm_natural_reserve_Cayapas_Corte Constitucional_ron_Spanish (1).pdf (1.43 MB) PDF icon Ecuador_2015_shrimp_farm_reserve_Cayapas_Corte_Cosntitucional_sentencia_aclaracion_ron_spanish.pdf (365.96 KB) PDF icon Ecuador_2011_shrimp_farm_RESERVE_CAYAPAS_LOWER_CT_RON_SPANISH.pdf (1.27 MB)

See summary in Spanish.

This lawsuit arose from an operation by the Ministry of Environment to dismantle illegal shrimp farming operations from three ecological reserves designated to protect vital mangrove ecosystems. One of those shrimp farms was "Marmeza," located in the ecological reserve "Cayapas Mataje" in Esmeraldas. The owner filed a Writ of Protection with the Provincial Court of Justice of Esmeraldas seeking the invalidation of the Ministry's administrative resolution ordering the closure of the shrimp farm. The plaintiff argued that the Ministry's actions were illegal and unconstitutional because he owned the land before Cayapas Mataje was designated as an ecological reserve and that his property lay outside the reserve's boundaries.  Moreover, the plaintiff claimed he held the required permits and had not destroyed any mangroves. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged violations of his property rights, due process, and legal instability. The court ultimately granted the Writ of Protection, siding with the shrimp farm and overturning the administrative resolution that ordered the closure of the shrimp farm as an illegal taking. Furthermore, the court held that the Provincial Ministry of Environment lacked the authority to enforce the Rights of Nature. Subsequently, the Ministry of the Environment filed an "extraordinary writ of protection"  with the Constitutional Court. After a thorough review of the lower court's decision and relevant laws, the Constitutional Court found that the lower court had only considered the plaintiff's property rights, failing to balance these rights with the Rights of Nature and make an assessment as to whether the Rights of Nature had in fact been violated. Thus, the Constitutional Court held that the lower court's decision had infringed upon the defendant's right to due process, invalidated the lower court's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

 

 

 

Share |