English

The Court had to rule on the possible violation of the right to health of a teenager suffering from cancer, as a result of the location of a mobile phone antenna 26 meters from her place of residence, and whose electromagnetic fields aggravate her health. It was specified in the application for protection, that current scientific reality allows to see that electromagnetic fields are classified as possible carcinogens, which is why the precautionary principle should be applied, and regulate the location of mobile telephone antennas, so that be subject to limits that prevent people from reckless exposure to radiation. The Court granted the tutela  in the following manner:


1. Applied the precautionary principle and reiterated that "when the environmental authority must make specific decisions, aimed at avoiding a danger of serious damage, without having absolute scientific certainty, it must do so in accordance with environmental policies outlined by law , in development of the Constitution, in a motivated form and away from any possibility of arbitrariness or caprice.

2. He also reiterated the criteria for applying the precautionary principle: "(i) That there is danger of harm; (ii) That it is serious and irreversible; (iii) That there is a principle of scientific certainty, even if it is not absolute; (iv) That the decision that the authority adopts is aimed at preventing the degradation of the environment. (v) That the act in which the decision is adopted is reasoned.