The Council of State restores the principle of legality to administrative actions in mining matters.

The Council of State overturned the resolutions by which the National Mining Agency (ANM) rejected a mining concession application for including more than one watercourse in the proposed area. The ruling stated that this interpretation of Article 64 of the Mining Code disregarded the principle of legality and unduly restricted the applicants' rights.

In a recent decision, the Council of State brought back to the table a crucial debate for the management of non-renewable natural resources: the limits of administrative interpretation in mining matters.

The case originated in a proposed concession that was rejected by the National Mining Agency (ANM) on the grounds that the requested area comprised more than one watercourse, which —according to the entity— contradicted the provisions of article 64 of the Mining Code.

The plaintiffs appealed to the administrative court to challenge that interpretation. The Council of State, after examining the merits of the case, concluded that the authority had exceeded the legal framework and that its interpretation of the rule lacked legal basis.

The ruling reiterates that the mining administrative procedure is strictly defined by law. Therefore, the ANM cannot impose conditions or restrictions not expressly stipulated by law.

The Council clarified that Article 64 of the Mining Code does not prohibit the existence of more than one watercourse within the requested area. Its purpose is to prevent concessions from extending disproportionately along a watercourse, not to prevent several streams from converging within the same polygon. By adopting a restrictive interpretation, the National Mining Agency (ANM) disregarded the principle of legality and infringed upon the rights of the applicants, thus justifying the annulment of the issued administrative acts.

The ruling emphasizes that the area is the core of the mining concession contract. It defines the scope of the exploration and exploitation rights and must be precisely delimited from a technical, legal, and environmental standpoint. However, this delimitation cannot be used as grounds for creating prohibitions not provided for by law. The Council also noted that there are valid mining titles that cover more than one watercourse, revealing a lack of consistency in administrative action and violating the principle of equality.

The Council of State insisted that regulations must be interpreted according to their purpose and context. In the case of Article 64, its purpose is not to limit the number of watercourses, but to ensure the rational use of water resources within sustainable parameters.

An isolated or literal reading, the Court warned, distorts the balance between legality, legal certainty and environmental protection, pillars that must coexist harmoniously in any responsible mining policy.

The Supreme Court ordered the National Maritime Authority (ANM) to resume processing the application and respect the plaintiffs' right of priority. This is not about recognizing an acquired right, but about restoring due process and ensuring that administrative decisions are made within the bounds of the law.

The institutional message is clear: the mining authority must act with technical rigor, but without exceeding its interpretive power. In matters of concessions, the principle of legality is not a mere formality, but rather the current that sustains confidence in the rule of law.

In short, with this decision, the third section of the Council of State restores the course of legality in mining administrative law.

Download the ruling here

138_Sentencia_66514MineroAreadelac_0_20251002110730546.pdf

Descargar PDF • 443KB