{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-156829",
  "citation": "Res. 00044-2016 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "ARESEP no incurrió en daño indemnizable al equiparar precio de combustible pesquero",
  "title_en": "ARESEP not liable for equalizing fuel prices for fishing fleet",
  "summary_es": "La Sección V del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo resolvió una demanda de indemnización interpuesta por el sector pesquero no deportivo contra la ARESEP. Los actores alegaban que entre noviembre de 2002 y octubre de 2013, la ARESEP eliminó indebidamente el precio preferencial del combustible para la flota pesquera, basándose en la errónea suposición de que la Ley 7593 derogó tácitamente el artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, y equiparó el precio plantel al de los consumidores finales, incorporando costos de inversión y administración no autorizados. El Tribunal determinó que, efectivamente, la ARESEP actuó bajo una premisa falsa y contravino la ley al añadir rubros no contemplados en la fijación del precio plantel, e incluso omitió ajustar su criterio tras un dictamen jurídico interno de 2003 que confirmó la vigencia del artículo 45 y ante decretos ejecutivos que lo reglamentaron. No obstante, rechazó la demanda porque los actores no solicitaron la nulidad de los actos administrativos impugnados y, crucialmente, no presentaron prueba técnica idónea que demostrara que la equiparación de precios causó un daño antijurídico real, esto es, que el combustible dejó de ser competitivo respecto al mercado internacional, único fin tutelado por la norma. Se aplicó el artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil sobre la carga de la prueba.",
  "summary_en": "The Fifth Section of the Contentious Administrative Tribunal ruled on a damages claim brought by the non-sport fishing sector against ARESEP. The plaintiffs alleged that between November 2002 and October 2013, ARESEP improperly eliminated the preferential fuel price for the fishing fleet, based on the mistaken assumption that Law 7593 tacitly repealed Article 45 of Law 7384, and equated the ex-plant price with that of end consumers by adding unauthorized investment and administrative costs. The Tribunal found that ARESEP indeed acted on a false premise and violated the law by adding unpermitted cost items to the ex-plant price, and even failed to adjust its criteria after a 2003 internal legal opinion confirmed Article 45 remained in force and after executive decrees regulated it. However, it dismissed the claim because the plaintiffs did not seek annulment of the challenged administrative acts and, crucially, did not provide suitable technical evidence proving that the price equalization caused actual wrongful harm—that the fuel ceased to be competitive against the international market, which was the sole interest protected by the norm. Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code on the burden of proof was applied.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V",
  "date": "2016",
  "year": "2016",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "ARESEP",
    "Ley 7384",
    "precio FOB plantel",
    "servicio al costo",
    "acto administrativo",
    "carga de la prueba",
    "INCOPESCA",
    "RECOPE"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 45",
      "law": "Ley 7384"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 3",
      "law": "Ley 7593"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 123",
      "law": "Ley 8436"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "ARESEP",
    "precio competitivo",
    "combustible",
    "flota pesquera",
    "indemnización",
    "Ley 7384",
    "artículo 45",
    "carga de la prueba",
    "servicio al costo",
    "FOB plantel",
    "responsabilidad del Estado",
    "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "ARESEP",
    "competitive price",
    "fuel",
    "fishing fleet",
    "damages",
    "Law 7384",
    "article 45",
    "burden of proof",
    "cost of service",
    "FOB plant",
    "State liability",
    "Contentious Administrative Tribunal"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "De conformidad con lo anterior, este Tribunal ha tenido por demostrado que, fundada en la premisa falsa de la derogatoria del artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 29 de marzo de 1994, la ARESEP procedió a equiparar el precio plantel de los pescadores (excluyendo el respectivo impuesto) con el de cualquier otro consumidor final, e incorporando en este concepto una serie de rubros no contemplados originalmente en las fijaciones anteriores a los actos administrativos de resoluciones 2774-2002 de las ocho horas del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos y RRG-2821-2002 de 9:30 horas de 24 de octubre de 2002. Con lo anterior, es evidente que se incumplió parcialmente con lo dispuesto en el indicado artículo, dado que se empleó en la fijación del precio plantel otros costos diferentes a los establecidos expresamente en la Ley 7384. [...] No obstante, no resulta procedente acoger la demanda, en tanto que la parte actora, por una parte no pidió la nulidad de los respectivos actos administrativos y por otra, la representación del actor no probó que con los cambios en los rubros a considerar en el precio de los combustibles a los pescadores, el precio de aquellos haya dejado de ser competitivo con el mercado internacional, tal y como lo establece expresamente la norma, además de la falta de prueba del daño invocado.",
  "excerpt_en": "Based on the above, this Tribunal has held it demonstrated that, founded on the false premise of the repeal of Article 45 of Law 7384, Law Creating the Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture of March 29, 1994, ARESEP equated the ex-plant price of fuel for fishermen (excluding the respective tax) with that of any other final consumer, and incorporated in this concept a series of items not originally contemplated in the price settings prior to administrative acts resolutions 2774-2002 of eight a.m. on September 26, 2002, and RRG-2821-2002 of 9:30 a.m. on October 24, 2002. Consequently, it is evident that there was partial non-compliance with said article, since the setting of the ex-plant price used costs other than those expressly established in Law 7384. [...] However, it is not appropriate to grant the claim, since the claimant, on the one hand, did not request the annulment of the respective administrative acts, and on the other, the claimant's representation did not prove that the changes in the items to be considered in the fuel price for fishermen caused that price to cease to be competitive with the international market, as expressly established by the norm, in addition to the lack of proof of the alleged harm.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Dismissed",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Tribunal dismissed the damages claim because the plaintiffs did not prove wrongful harm nor seek annulment of the challenged administrative acts.",
    "summary_es": "El Tribunal rechazó la demanda indemnizatoria porque los actores no demostraron daño antijurídico ni solicitaron la nulidad de los actos administrativos impugnados."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando sobre la interpretación del artículo 45",
      "quote_en": "When the norm mentions the FOB plant price, it cannot be analyzed out of context from the rest of the norm which indicates that the price to be set will be 'based on the average import cost of the previous month and considering the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as pipeline distribution and plant distribution costs...', without mentioning other costs subsequently integrated into the price merely through ARESEP's interpretation.",
      "quote_es": "Cuando la norma menciona el precio FOB plantel no puede analizarse descontextualizada del resto de la norma que indica que el precio a fijar será 'basado en el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior y considerando el costo C.I.F. refinería, así como los costos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en planteles...', sin que se mencione otros costos integrados al precio posteriormente por mera interpretación de la ARESEP."
    },
    {
      "context": "Conclusión sobre la improcedencia de la demanda",
      "quote_en": "...it is not appropriate to grant the claim, since the claimant, on the one hand, did not request the annulment of the respective administrative acts, and on the other, the claimant's representation did not prove that the changes in the items to be considered in the fuel price for fishermen caused that price to cease to be competitive with the international market...",
      "quote_es": "...no resulta procedente acoger la demanda, en tanto que la parte actora, por una parte no pidió la nulidad de los respectivos actos administrativos y por otra, la representación del actor no probó que con los cambios en los rubros a considerar en el precio de los combustibles a los pescadores, el precio de aquellos haya dejado de ser competitivo con el mercado internacional..."
    },
    {
      "context": "Razonamiento sobre la carga de la prueba",
      "quote_en": "...the mere assertion of a party is not sufficient, if there is no solid evidentiary basis serving to demonstrate the facts or defenses alleged. Given that the party seeks a legality review, not to remove conducts from the legal world, but exclusively for compensatory purposes, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to demonstrate that beyond the existence or not of defects in the administrative conduct, it had an unlawful consequence that could cause harmful effects in its legal sphere.",
      "quote_es": "...la mera invocación de la parte no es suficiente, si no existe un sólido fundamento probatorio que sirva de demostración de los hechos o defensas que se alegan. En razón de que la parte solicita el análisis de legalidad, no para efectos de extraer las conductas del mundo jurídico, sino exclusivamente con fines indemnizatorios, le correspondía al actor demostrar que más allá de la existencia o no de vicios en la conducta administrativa, ésta tuvo una consecuencia antijurídica que podría ser provocadora de efectos dañosos en su esfera jurídica."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-25929",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 7384  Art. 45"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-26314",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 7593  Art. 3"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-54688",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 8436  Art. 123"
      }
    ],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-156829",
  "tier": 2,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 0,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "amendments_by_article": null,
  "dictamen_by_article": null,
  "concordancias_by_article": null,
  "afectaciones_by_article": null,
  "resoluciones_by_article": null,
  "cited_by_votos": [],
  "cited_norms": [],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-25929",
      "norm_num": "7384",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Creación del INCOPESCA",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "16/03/1994"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-26314",
      "norm_num": "7593",
      "norm_name": "Ley de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "09/08/1996"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-54688",
      "norm_num": "8436",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "01/03/2005"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "“VI.III Sobre el fondo: En lo medular, la parte\r\nactora en su demanda alega que la\r\n ARESEP mediante la resolución\r\nadministrativa No.2774-2002, de las 8:00 horas, del 26 de setiembre\r\ndel 2002, estableció en el considerando 4, que la Ley No.7593 derogó tácitamente\r\nal articulo 45 de la ley de INCOPESCA, por lo que las\r\ntarifas y precios de este servicio público (suministro de combustible a\r\npescadores) se deberán determinar de acuerdo con la ley de la autoridad\r\nreguladora, de forma que, en su estructura tarifaria,\r\nse incorporarán no solo el costo por inversiones referido, sino todos aquellos\r\ncostos que sean necesarios para la prestación del servicio público. Por\r\nconsiguiente, la parte demandada amparada en esa resolución posteriormente se\r\nprocedió a emitir la resolución No.RRG-2821,de las 9:30 horas, del 24 de octubre del 2002, conforme a\r\nla cual la entidad demandada materializó la eliminación del \"precio\r\npreferencial\", a favor de la flota pesquera nacional no deportiva, en lo\r\nrelacionado con la adquisición del combustible. Consecuentemente, a partir del\r\n4 de noviembre del 2002, de manera invariable y sostenida la ARESEP\r\nprocedió a fijar el mismo precio del combustible, tanto para los consumidores\r\nen general, como igualmente para la flora pesquera no deportiva. Indica que\r\nante esa situación fáctica, el sector pesquero no deportivo se vio en la\r\nnecesidad de gestionar una \"Ley de Interpretación Auténtica\", sobre\r\nel alcance real y efectivo del beneficio en la compra del combustible, lo cual\r\nse materializó mediante la\r\n Ley No.9134, DEL 13 de junio del 2013 , por la cual la ARESEP\r\nse vio forzada a variar su criterio de fijación de precios para el pescador;\r\nsiendo así que se dictó la\r\n Resolución No.RIE-084- 2013,\r\npublicada en la Gaceta\r\ndel 1 de octubre del 2013, en la que se refleja un precio inferior, respecto al\r\ncombustible que adquiera la flota pesquera no deportiva. Por consiguiente, en\r\ntodo el período comprendido entre el 4 de noviembre de 2002 -que entró en\r\nvigencia la Citada\r\n Resolución No.RRG-2821-y hasta\r\nel1de octubre de 2013, que se implementó la Resolución No.RlE-084-2013,\r\nal sector pesquero no deportivo no se le reconoció un precio menor, respecto al\r\nprecio del combustible para el consumidor en general. En razón de lo anterior,\r\nestima que la ARESEP ha incurrido en una conducta\r\ncontraria a Derecho, al mostrarse omisa, de forma consciente, reiterada y\r\nsostenida, en cuanto a conceder un precio diferenciado al sector pesquero no\r\ndeportivo, durante todo ese período que va del 4 de noviembre del 2002, hasta\r\nel 1 de octubre del 2013. La parte demandada responde dichos alegatos indicando\r\nque no es cierto que haya ignorado ni antes ni después de la entrada en\r\nvigencia de la interpretación auténtica, lo dispuesto en los artículos que la\r\nparte actora funda su demanda, dado que por la redacción superficial de los\r\nindicados artículos, la forma de implementar ese beneficio, en cuanto al\r\nestablecimiento de la metodología de cálculo aplicable, los costos a considerar\r\ndentro de la prestación del servicio, y otros aspectos de carácter regulatorio,fueron dejados a la competencia técnica\r\nexclusiva de la Aresep, como se puntualiza en los\r\npárrafos finales del artículo 45 de la\r\n Ley 7384. Lo anterior debe complementarse con la existencia\r\nde la Ley 7593,\r\nque le impone, el poder-deber de aplicar el principio de servicio al costo a\r\nlas tarifas de todos los servicios públicos regulados, siendo así que resulta\r\nnecesario para el equilibrio financiero del prestador del servicio, ver\r\nincorporado en sus tarifas, determinados costos, entre ellos los de inversión\r\nque garanticen la continuidad,desarrollo\r\ny sostenibilidad de la actividad. No es cierto que la Autoridad Reguladora\r\nhaya omitido establecer un precio competitivo para la flota pesquera nacional,\r\npues desde el 2002 existe una resolución del Regulador General que establece la\r\nforma de cálculo de los precios de los combustibles para esa flota pesquera. Según\r\nese método de cálculo, tales precios se fijan cuando se establezcan los precios\r\nplantel para Recope, en razón de que, el precio para\r\nla flota pesquera -considerando inversiones- equivale al precio plantel de RECOPE,sin impuesto único.Consecuentemente, desde entonces se incorpora el\r\nrubro de inversiones dentro del cálculo del precio plantel, de acuerdo con lo\r\nque señala el artículo 45 de la\r\n Ley 7384, que dispone el cobro de un precio FOB plantel. Con\r\nposterioridad, con ocasión a la interpretación auténtica, la metodología, de\r\nprevio aprobada, para fijar el precio del combustible en planteles de\r\ndistribución de Recope y al consumidor final\",\r\nse adecua a dicha normativa, emitiéndose la resolución RIE-084-2013\r\ndel 24 de septiembre de 2013, por parte de la Intendencia de\r\nEnergía. De conformidad con el análisis de la prueba aportada a los autos y los\r\nalegatos de las partes, estima este Tribunal que no lleva razón la parte\r\nactora, por los motivos que a continuación se indicarán. El artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, Ley de Creación del\r\nInstituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 29 de marzo de 1994. estableció\r\nlo siguiente: \"ARTICULO 45.- El sector pesquero adquirirá de RECOPE el combustible (gasolina y diésel),\r\npara la actividad de pesca no deportiva a un precio competitivo con el precio\r\ninternacional, basado en el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior y\r\nconsiderando el costo C.I.F. refinería, así como los\r\ncostos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en planteles, de tal forma\r\nque el precio sea F.O.B. Plantel. Ese precio será\r\nfijado por el Servicio Nacional de Electricidad; al cual deberá solicitarlo\r\npreviamente RECOPE, según lo dispuesto en la Ley No. 6588 del 30 de\r\njulio de 1981, o el Instituto. El Instituto se encargará de la administración y\r\nel control del uso eficiente del combustible, destinado a la actividad pesquera\r\nno deportiva\". Como se advierte de la norma, su propósito era\r\nestablecer un precio competitivo para el combustible que se destinaría a la\r\nactividad pesquera no deportiva, estableciéndose como parámetro el precio F.O.B. plantel. De conformidad con la anterior norma,\r\nmediante resolución RRG-2708-2002 , la ARESEP\r\nestableció la fórmula de ajuste extraordinario para la determinación de precios\r\npara los combustibles que consumía la flota pesquera. De conformidad con lo\r\nanterior, la estructura de costos de la gasolina y diésel\r\nen dichos casos, comprendería: 1) Costo CIF\r\nrefinería, 2) Costo por oleoducto 3) Costo por planteles 4) Costo\r\nadministrativo. Con posterioridad de conformidad con resoluciones RJD-013, 014 y 016-2002 de la Junta Directiva de\r\nla ARESEP\r\nse acordó que dentro de la estructura de precio de los indicados combustibles,\r\nse debía incorporar las inversiones del prestador del servicio. Así, de\r\nconformidad con dicho acto administrativo, la estructura respectiva contenía:\r\n1) Costo CIF refinería, 2) Costo por oleoducto 3)\r\nCosto por planteles 4) Costo administrativo 5) Costo de inversiones. Mediante resolución\r\n2774-2002 de las ocho horas del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos, la ARESEP\r\ndispuso revocar la fórmula de ajuste extraordinario para determinación de los\r\nprecios de combustible que consume la flota pesquera de conformidad con la\r\nresolución RRG-2708-2002 e indicar a las partes que\r\nlas fijaciones de precios se realizarán conforme a los artículos 3,30 y 31 de\r\nla ley 7593. En razón de lo anterior, la estructura de costos de conformidad\r\ncon este acto, contenía: 1) Costo CIF refinería, 2)\r\nCosto por oleoducto 3) Costo por planteles 4) Costo administrativo 5) Costo de\r\ninversiones 6) costos de prestación del servicio. Es así como en la práctica,\r\nesta resolución vino a equipara el precio plantel del combustible para\r\npescadores al de cualquier consumidor final. Con posterioridad, mediante\r\nresolución RRG-2821-2002 de 9:30 horas de\r\n24 de octubre de 2002 se contempló un precio de combustibles para los\r\npescadores, de conformidad con la resolución 2772-2002, a precio plantel, sin\r\nimpuestos. Es menester indicar que lo dispuesto en la indicada resolución\r\n2772-2002 parte de la presunción de que las disposiciones de la Ley de Creación de la Autoridad Reguladora\r\nde Servicios Públicos, Ley número 7593, derogaron el indicado artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, Ley de Creación del\r\nInstituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 29 de marzo de 1994, tal y como lo indica\r\nexpresamente la conducta administrativa de referencia. No obstante lo anterior,\r\nmediante criterio de la\r\n Dirección Jurídica Especializada de la ARESEP\r\nde fecha 21 de octubre de 2003 se le indicó a la Reguladora General\r\nque el artículo 45 de la Ley\r\n7384 está vigente y debe aplicarse sobre las normas de rango inferior que lo\r\ncontradigan. Sin embargo, ello no devino en modificar la fijación de precios\r\nindicada anteriormente, obviándose adecuarlo a la consideración de que dicha\r\nnorma se encontraba vigente y establecía claramente que el precio FOB Plantel,\r\ndebía tomar en consideración exclusivamente el costo promedio de importación\r\ndel mes anterior del combustible y el costo C.I.F.\r\nrefinería, así como los costos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en\r\nplanteles. Lo anterior, se ve reafirmado con posterioridad, con el artículo 123\r\nde la Ley 8436,\r\nLey de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 25 de abril de 2005, dispuso lo siguiente: \"Artículo\r\n123.—Exonérase a la flota\r\npesquera nacional, excepto a la dedicada a la pesca deportiva, de todo tipo de\r\nimpuestos nacionales para la importación de embarcaciones, repuestos, motores,\r\nimplementos de navegación, de pesca y sus respectivos accesorios. En\r\ncumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 de la Ley Nº 7384, de 16 de marzo\r\nde 1994, RECOPE venderá el combustible (gasolina,\r\nregular y diésel) a la flota pesquera nacional,\r\nexcepto para la actividad de pesca deportiva, a un precio competitivo con el\r\nprecio internacional\". Del texto de esta última norma se evidencia que\r\nse viene a reiterar la necesidad de que la fijación del precio que se realice\r\nsea competitiva con el precio internacional del combustible, si bien no se\r\nestablece el parámetro indicado ut supra. Es menester indicar que mediante decreto ejecutivo\r\n31299-MAG-MINAE, se reglamentó el artículo 45 dicho\r\nen el siguiente sentido: \"Artículo 1º-En cumplimiento a lo dispuesto en\r\nel artículo 45 de la Ley Nº\r\n7384 de 16 de marzo de 1994, RECOPE venderá el\r\ncombustible (gasolina regular y diésel), a la Flota Pesquera\r\nNacional, excepto la actividad de pesca deportiva, a un precio competitivo con\r\nel precio internacional. Artículo 2º—Para los efectos de la aplicación del\r\npresente Reglamento, se establecen las siguientes definiciones: a) PCFPi = Es el Precio de Venta en Plantel por Litro de\r\nCombustible (gasolina regular o diésel), que consume la Flota Pesquera\r\nNacional No Deportiva. b) CIFRi = Es el costo mensual\r\nCIF Refinería, por Litro de Combustible, el cual\r\nincluye los costos F.O.B. (libre a bordo), así como\r\nel seguro y el transporte del combustible (gasolina regular y diésel), colocado en el Puerto de Desembarque Nacional. Se\r\ndeberá interpretar que dentro de este concepto, su componente F.O.B., sea igual al que utilizó RECOPE\r\ncomo promedio en su último ajuste extraordinario, para cada uno de los\r\ncombustibles antes citados. c) COif = Costo anual por\r\nlitro trasegado por Oleoducto calculado con base en la información existente en\r\nel cierre contable del período fiscal inmediato anterior, de conformidad con la\r\ninformación existente en el último Estado Financiero Disponible, considerando\r\ncomo denominador, el volumen proporcional de combustibles trasegados por\r\nOleoducto, destinado al consumo de la Flota Pesquera Nacional no Deportiva. El monto\r\nobtenido se actualizará con la inflación estimada para el período siguiente. d)\r\nCPif = Costo anual por litro vendido en Planteles\r\ncalculado con base en la información existente en el cierre contable del Período\r\nFiscal inmediato anterior, de conformidad con la información existente en el\r\núltimo Estado Financiero Disponible, considerando como denominador, el volumen\r\nproporcional de combustible vendido en Planteles, durante el período que\r\ncorresponda, destinado al consumo de la Flota Pesquera\r\nNacional No Deportiva. El monto obtenido se actualizará por la inflación\r\nestimada para el período siguiente. e) Precio Internacional de Combustible: Se\r\ndeterminará con base en el promedio del precio que RECOPE\r\nutiliza como referencia para los combustibles (gasolina, diésel),\r\nque importa. f) Combustible para Pesca: Abarca únicamente la variedad gasolina\r\nregular y el diésel. Artículo 3º-La fijación del\r\nprecio de los combustibles, que consume la Flota Pesquera\r\nNacional No Deportiva, se establecerá tomando en cuenta únicamente la siguiente\r\nestructura de costos: PCFPi = CIFRi\r\n+ COif + CPif Para: i =\r\nGasolina Regular, Diésel f = Fijos hasta la\r\nconclusión de la próxima revisión. Artículo 4º- En la determinación del\r\nprecio de los combustibles destinados al consumo de la Flota Pesquera\r\nNacional No Deportiva, no se considerarán los montos correspondientes a gastos\r\nde administración, depreciación de activos, cargos portuarios, inversión,\r\nmárgenes de comercialización u otros de naturaleza similar, de modo tal, que se\r\ncumpla con el objetivo de que el precio fijado, sea competitivo con los precios\r\ninternacionales de los mercados que utiliza RECOPE\r\ncomo referencia en la adquisición de los combustibles. Artículo 5º-Las\r\nsolicitudes de precio podrán ser hechas por RECOPE o INCOPESCA o por el ente Regulador de Oficio, por cuanto las\r\nvariaciones de precio de la\r\n Flota Pesquera Nacional No Deportiva, se harán siguiendo las\r\nmismas variaciones Ordinarias y Extraordinarias solicitadas por RECOPE.\" (el destacado es\r\nnuestro). A pesar de lo anterior, no hay prueba de que ARESEP\r\nhaya modificado la fijación de precios hecha en la resolución 2774-2002 de las\r\nocho horas del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos en cuanto a la\r\nincorporación de gastos de administración de RECOPE\r\nen la fijación del precio plantel del combustible. Dicho decreto fue derogado\r\npor el decreto ejecutivo 32527-MAG de 3 de junio de 2005, el cual dispuso: \"Artículo\r\n1º-En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 de la Ley Nº 7384 del 16 de marzo\r\nde 1994 y el artículo 123 párrafo segundo de la Ley Nº 8436 del 1° de marzo\r\ndel 2005, RECOPE venderá el combustible (gasolina\r\nregular y diésel) a la Flota Pesquera\r\nNacional, excepto la actividad de pesca deportiva, a un precio competitivo con\r\nel precio internacional. Artículo 2º-El precio competitivo con el precio\r\ninternacional, para la venta del combustible mencionado en el artículo\r\nanterior, estará comprendido en la fijación tarifaria\r\nque se realice, por la aplicación de la excepción del impuesto único a los\r\ncombustibles y la no incorporación dentro de dicho precio, de los montos\r\ncorrespondientes a gastos de administración, depreciación de activos, cargos\r\nportuarios e inversión. Artículo 3º-La diferencia resultante en la\r\ndeterminación del precio competitivo con el precio internacional, entre el\r\nmonto correspondiente por la aplicación de la excepción del impuesto único a\r\nlos combustibles y los rubros no incorporados en el artículo segundo, serán\r\nreconocidos por el Estado al Sector Pesquero Nacional no Deportivo a partir del\r\n\"Acuerdo para la atención de temas críticos del Sector Pesquero\r\nNacional\" suscrito el 29 de enero del 2008. Para ello el Ministerio de\r\nHacienda incorporará en el presupuesto nacional el monto correspondiente al\r\nsubsidio establecido en el Artículo Segundo y lo girará al Instituto\r\nCostarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA), a\r\ntravés de la respectiva transferencia. El monto del subsidio por litro de\r\ncombustible de gasolina regular o diésel será\r\ndeterminado por el INCOPESCA, el que en razón de sus\r\ncompetencias, será el encargado de su asignación a cada pescador beneficiado,\r\nsu distribución y control, debiendo rendir un informe semestral al citado\r\nministerio, de acuerdo a la normativa vigente. artículo\r\n4º-El monto correspondiente a los rubros excepcionados en el artículo Segundo\r\nserán determinados con base en los registros contables de RECOPE\r\ndel período fiscal inmediato anterior cerrado. Para ello y en relación con\r\ndicho periodo, RECOPE suministrará al INCOPESCA la información anual contable requerida para la\r\ncuantificación del subsidio por litro: los estados financieros indicados, las\r\nventas totales de RECOPE en volumen, los gastos\r\nadministrativos, la depreciación de activos, las inversiones de caja ejecutadas\r\ny los cargos portuarios\". (el destacado es\r\nnuestro). Como se advierte, el mismo estableció la necesidad de fijación de\r\nprecios para el combustible para pescadores sin tomar en consideración gastos\r\nde administración entre otros. No obstante, no consta en autos que ARESEP haya actuado de conformidad con dicho cuerpo\r\nnormativo, manteniendo el costo interno administrativo de RECOPE.\r\nInclusive es menester indicar que mediante resolución RRG-9233-2008\r\nde diez horas con veinte minutos del once de noviembre de dos mil ocho,\r\nnuevamente se parte de la vigencia del artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, se fija un precio\r\nplantel sin impuesto para los precios de combustible para pesca no\r\ndeportiva igual al del distribuidor para consumidor final en estaciones de\r\nservicio. […] \n\r\n\r\n\nTambién\r\nlleva razón cuando indica que los factores MT y MC no se incluyen en el precio\r\nplantel de Recope, dado que corresponden al\r\ntransporte a las estaciones de servicio y la comercialización en éstas. Por lo\r\nanterior, debe atenderse a que el precio plantel excluye estos factores, mas\r\ndebiendo tomarse en consideración que como se indicó el indicado precio plantel\r\nde los combustibles para pescadores no se diferencia del señalado para otros\r\nconsumidores finales, excepto en lo que corresponde a la exoneración de\r\ncobro del respectivo tributo sobre combustibles, de conformidad con lo\r\ndispuesto en la Ley\r\nde Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributaria. Así a manera de ejemplo, la referida\r\nresolución RRG-9233-2008 de diez horas con veinte\r\nminutos del once de noviembre de dos mil ocho,fija\r\niguales precios para el combustible en plantel sin impuesto para la flota pesquera\r\nnacional y para el distribuidor de combustibles a consumidor (ver folio 36 de\r\nla resolución y 191 del expediente judicial). No consta modificación de dicha\r\nsituación hasta lo dispuesto en el artículo único de la ley N°\r\n9134 del 6 de junio del 2013, en donde se interpretó auténticamente el indicado\r\nartículo 45, que se define con mayor precisión los componentes que se podrían\r\ntomar en consideración en la fijación de precios del combustible para\r\npescadores, de la siguiente manera: \"... la expresión \"precio\r\ncompetitivo del combustible a nivel internacional\", contenido en ambas\r\nnormas, que recibirá la flota pesquera nacional no deportiva, es basado en que\r\nel sector pesquero costarricense adquirirá de la Refinadora Costarricense\r\nde Petróleo (Recope), o de la entidad legalmente\r\nautorizada para la importación de hidrocarburos al país, el combustible,\r\nproducto terminado (gasolina y diésel), a un precio\r\nque comprenderá únicamente los siguientes rubros: a) Valor del costo del\r\nproducto (producto refinado: monto de la factura de compra. Producto no\r\nrefinado: costo de refinamiento en Costa Rica). b) El flete hasta el puerto de\r\ndestino en Costa Rica. c) Los seguros correspondientes al combustible. d) El\r\ncosto por traslado del producto final, dentro del territorio nacional, hasta el\r\npunto de distribución. e) El costo de almacenamiento y bombeo para el plantel,\r\ndonde se efectúe la venta. Esos valores se fijarán con base en el costo\r\npromedio de importación del mes anterior, o la última información similar\r\ndisponible. Ningún modelo general de cálculo de precios podrá abarcar el\r\ncombustible destinado al sector pesquero nacional no deportivo, por lo tanto la Autoridad Reguladora\r\nde los Servicios Públicos (Aresep) deberá excluir\r\ncualquier otro rubro o componente considerado en la fijación del precio común\r\nde estos combustibles. El Incopesca se encargará de\r\nla administración y el control del uso eficiente del combustible destinado a la\r\nactividad pesquera no deportiva...\". De conformidad con lo anterior,\r\neste Tribunal ha tenido por demostrado que, fundada en la premisa falsa de la\r\nderogatoria del artículo 45 de la\r\n Ley 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y\r\nAcuicultura, de 29 de marzo de 1994, la ARESEP procedió a\r\nequiparar el precio plantel de los pescadores (excluyendo el respectivo\r\nimpuesto) con el de cualquier otro consumidor final, e incorporando en este\r\nconcepto una serie de rubros no contemplados originalmente en las fijaciones\r\nanteriores a los actos administrativos de resoluciones 2774-2002 de las ocho\r\nhoras del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos y RRG-2821-2002\r\nde 9:30 horas de 24 de octubre de 2002. Con lo anterior, es evidente que se\r\nincumplió parcialmente con lo dispuesto en el indicado artículo, dado que se\r\nempleó en la fijación del precio plantel otros costos diferentes a los\r\nestablecidos expresamente en la\r\n Ley 7384. Por consiguiente, las dos ventajas que obtenían los\r\npescadores no artesanales eran las siguientes: a) adquisición del producto\r\nprecio plantel, sin cargar costos de transporte fuera de plantel y\r\ncomercialización (con la salvedad de que como se ha indicado al referido precio\r\nplantel se le fueron cargando costos originalmente no contemplados) y b) la\r\nexoneración del pago del impuesto único sobre combustibles. No obstante, no\r\nresulta procedente acoger la demanda, en tanto que la parte actora, por una\r\nparte no pidió la nulidad de los respectivos actos administrativos y por otra,\r\nla representación del actor no probó que con los cambios en los rubros a\r\nconsiderar en el precio de los combustibles a los pescadores, el precio de\r\naquellos haya dejado de ser competitivo con el mercado internacional, tal y\r\ncomo lo establece expresamente la norma, además de que la falta de prueba del\r\ndaño invocado, tal y como se indicará posteriormente. Si bien, tal y como se ha\r\nindicado, las diferentes resoluciones de la ARESEP mencionadas\r\ntuvieron como consecuencia la equiparación del precio plantel de los pescadores\r\ncon el de cualquier consumidor final (menos el tributo respectivo), ello no\r\nsignifica per se, que tuviera como\r\nconsecuencia, una incidencia tal que implicara que el precio nacional plantel\r\nhaya dejado de poseer competitividad con el mercado internacional, tomando en\r\nconsideración además que en el caso de los combustibles de los pescadores no se\r\ndebía pagar el impuesto único de combustibles, lo cual resulta lógico, tuvo\r\nincidencia adicional en el precio nacional frente al exterior. Correspondía a\r\nla parte actora demostrar este aspecto mediante la presentación de prueba\r\ntécnica idónea, dado que este Tribunal no puede partir de meras presunciones\r\nrespecto de las consecuencias de los actos mencionados respecto de la\r\ncompetitividad con los precios internacionales, en tanto que estamos en\r\npresencia de precios plantel (que no tienen incorporados los costos al\r\ntransporte a las estaciones de servicio y la comercialización en éstas) y que\r\nademás no incluyen el pago del impuesto respectivo. De conformidad con las\r\nconsideraciones realizadas anteriormente, se aplica el artículo 317 del Código\r\nProcesal Civil, en tanto dispone: \"La carga de la prueba incumbe: 1) A\r\nquien formule una pretensión, respecto a las afirmaciones de los hechos\r\nconstitutivos de su derecho. 2) A quien se oponga a una pretensión, en cuanto a\r\nlas afirmaciones de hechos impeditivos, modificativos o extintivos del derecho\r\ndel actor\". Sobre la carga de la prueba se ha dicho en alguna otra\r\noportunidad, que: “…, en orden a lo dispuesto en el artículo 317 del Código\r\nProcesal Civil: “(…) La carga de la prueba no supone, pues, ningún derecho del\r\nadversario, sino un imperativo del propio interés de cada litigante; es una\r\ncircunstancia de riesgo que consiste en que quien no prueba los hechos que ha\r\nde probar, pierde el pleito. Puede quitarse esta carga de encima, probando, es\r\ndecir, acreditando la verdad de los hechos que la Ley señala. Y esto no crea,\r\nevidentemente, un derecho en el adversario, como si una situación jurídica\r\npersonal atinente a cada parte; el gravamen de no restar creencia a las\r\nafirmaciones que era menester probar y no se probaron... es lo mismo no probar que\r\nno existir (…)”. (Voto número 262 de las nueve horas cuarenta minutos del\r\ndiecisiete de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, del Tribunal Superior\r\nSegundo Civil, Sección Primera). De conformidad con lo anterior, la mera\r\ninvocación de la parte no es suficiente, si no existe un sólido fundamento\r\nprobatorio que sirva de demostración de los hechos o defensas que se alegan. En\r\nrazón de que la parte solicita el análisis de legalidad, no para efectos de\r\nextraer las conductas del mundo jurídico, sino exclusivamente con fines\r\nindemnizatorios, le correspondía al actor demostrar que más allá de la\r\nexistencia o no de vicios en la conducta administrativa, ésta tuvo una\r\nconsecuencia antijiurídica que podría ser provocadora\r\nde efectos dañosos en su esfera jurídica. No obstante, lejos de ello, en autos\r\nno consta que se haya demostrado la existencia de cambios negativos en la\r\ncompetitividad nacional con respecto a los precios internacionales del\r\ncombustible, ni la incidencia de las decisiones de la ARESEP\r\nen tal sentido, que puedan ser identificables, diferenciables\r\ne individualizables de otras situaciones internas y\r\nexternas al país que pudieren haber incidido en una eventual pérdida de la\r\nposibilidad de competir de nuestros pescadores naciones. Como bien lo indica la\r\nparte actora, el propósito de la norma era proteger la competitividad de los\r\npescadores nacionales frente al mercado internacional, siendo así que él no\r\ndemostró que en el caso de análisis se haya presentado una distorsión de los\r\nprecios plantel del país tal que haya incidido en tal objetivo. De manera\r\nadicional estima este Tribunal necesario referirse a la alegación de la ARESEP\r\ncon respecto a que lo actuado fue hecho en ejercicio de sus competencias. En\r\neste sentido si bien es claro que la Autoridad Reguladora\r\nde Servicios Públicos posee competencias suficientes para imponer a los\r\nconcesionarios del servicio público las reglas que deben seguirse para la\r\nfijación de la tarifa o del ajuste tarifario, siendo\r\nasí que la escogencia de la metodología de fijación de precios y tarifas es un\r\nproblema de índole técnica y por consiguiente se puede utilizar las\r\nmetodologías que sean compatibles con el principio del servicio al costo\r\nestablecido en el artículo 3 de la\r\n Ley de Creación de la ARESEP, debe recordarse\r\nque ésta puede ejercer sus competencias regulatorias\r\npero dentro del marco del ordenamiento sin desaplicar lo dispuesto en la Ley, ni vaciar de contenido la\r\nrespectiva norma. En este orden de ideas, su discrecionalidad técnica debe\r\nejercerse dentro del marco del ordenamiento jurídico y si el mismo establece\r\nlímites, no resulta procedente que vía interpretación se considere no aplicable\r\nuna disposición determinada o se incorporen rubros a los precios no\r\ncontemplados en una ley concreta, cuando el legislador ha optado por definir\r\nlos alcances de los componentes de un determinado precio (tal y como sucedió en\r\nel caso del acto administrativo de resolución 2774-2002 de las ocho horas del\r\nveintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos, Si bien la ARESEP\r\nfija sus tarifas de conformidad con el principio de servicio al costo, lo\r\ncierto es que había una norma válida, eficaz y vigente, que establecía un\r\nmétodo de fijación determinado, en orden a los intereses jurídicos que el\r\nlegislador en su momento decidió tutelar y no es procedente que mediante acto\r\nadministrativo se obvie dicha situación excepcional prevista por el\r\nordenamiento jurídico. Cuando la norma menciona el precio FOB plantel no puede\r\nanalizarse descontextualizada del resto de la norma que indica que el precio a\r\nfijar será \"basado en el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior\r\ny considerando el costo C.I.F. refinería, así como\r\nlos costos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en planteles...\", sin\r\nque se mencione otros costos integrados al precio posteriormente por mera\r\ninterpretación de la ARESEP. En todo caso, como se ha\r\nindicado, las conductas administrativas correspondientes no se han objetado y\r\ncon respecto a sus consecuencias, como se ha dicho y se terminará de ahondar a\r\ncontinuación, no hay la más mínima prueba de un resultado dañoso en contra del\r\nactor […].”",
  "body_en_text": "“VI.III On the merits: At the core, the plaintiff\nin its lawsuit alleges that\nARESEP, through administrative\nresolution No. 2774-2002, at 8:00 a.m., on September 26,\n2002, established in considerando 4, that Law No. 7593 tacitly repealed\narticle 45 of the INCOPESCA law, and therefore the\nrates and prices for this public service (fuel supply to\nfishermen) must be determined in accordance with the law of the regulatory\nauthority, such that, in its rate structure,\nnot only the referenced investment cost, but all\nthose costs necessary for the provision of the public service, will be incorporated. Consequently,\nthe defendant party, protected by that resolution, subsequently\nproceeded to issue resolution No. RRG-2821, at 9:30 a.m., on October 24, 2002, whereby\nthe defendant entity materialized the elimination of the “preferential\nprice,” in favor of the national non-sport fishing fleet, in what\nrelates to the acquisition of fuel. Consequently, as of\nNovember 4, 2002, ARESEP invariably and persistently\nproceeded to set the same price for fuel, both for consumers\nin general, and equally for the non-sport fishing fleet. It indicates that\nfaced with this factual situation, the non-sport fishing sector found itself in the\nnecessity of managing an “Authentic Interpretation Law,” regarding\nthe real and effective scope of the benefit in the purchase of fuel, which\nmaterialized through\nLaw No. 9134, of June 13, 2013, by which ARESEP\nwas forced to change its price-setting criteria for the fisherman;\nthus, Resolution No. RIE-084-2013 was issued,\npublished in the Official Gazette (Gaceta)\nof October 1, 2013, in which a lower price is reflected, regarding the\nfuel acquired by the non-sport fishing fleet. Consequently, in\nthe entire period between November 4, 2002—when the cited\nResolution No. RRG-2821 entered into force—and until\nOctober 1, 2013, when Resolution No. RIE-084-2013 was implemented,\nthe non-sport fishing sector was not granted a lower price, compared to the\nfuel price for the general consumer. By reason of the foregoing,\nit considers that ARESEP has engaged in conduct\ncontrary to law, by being consciously, repeatedly, and\npersistently remiss, in granting a differentiated price to the non-sport\nfishing sector, throughout that entire period spanning from November 4, 2002,\nuntil October 1, 2013. The defendant party responds to said allegations by indicating\nthat it is not true that it ignored, either before or after the entry into\nforce of the authentic interpretation, the provisions of the articles on which the\nplaintiff party bases its lawsuit, given that due to the superficial drafting of the\nindicated articles, the manner of implementing that benefit, regarding the\nestablishment of the applicable calculation methodology, the costs to be considered\nwithin the service provision, and other regulatory aspects, were left to the exclusive technical\ncompetence of Aresep, as specified in the\nfinal paragraphs of article 45 of\nLaw 7384. The foregoing must be complemented by the existence\nof Law 7593,\nwhich imposes on it the power-duty to apply the cost-of-service principle to\nthe rates of all regulated public services, thus, it is\nnecessary for the financial equilibrium of the service provider, to see\nincorporated into its rates, certain costs, among them investment costs\nthat guarantee the continuity, development,\nand sustainability of the activity. It is not true that the Regulatory Authority\nomitted to establish a competitive price for the national fishing fleet,\nsince since 2002 there exists a resolution of the General Regulator that establishes the\nmethod of calculating fuel prices for that fishing fleet. According\nto that calculation method, such prices are set when the rack prices (precios plantel) for Recope are established, because the price for\nthe fishing fleet—considering investments—is equivalent to the rack price (precio plantel) of RECOPE, without the single tax. Consequently, since then the\nitem of investments has been incorporated within the calculation of the rack price, in accordance with what\nis stated in article 45 of\nLaw 7384, which provides for the charging of a FOB rack price (precio FOB plantel). Subsequently,\non the occasion of the authentic interpretation, the methodology, previously\napproved, to set the fuel price at RECOPE distribution\nracks and to the final consumer,\nwas adapted to said regulation, issuing resolution RIE-084-2013\nof September 24, 2013, by the Energy\nIntendancy. In accordance with the analysis of the evidence provided to the court record and the\nallegations of the parties, this Tribunal considers that the plaintiff\nparty is incorrect, for the reasons that will be indicated below. Article 45 of Law 7384, Ley de Creación del\nInstituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, of March 29, 1994, established\nthe following: “ARTICLE 45.- The fishing sector shall acquire from RECOPE the fuel (gasoline and diesel),\nfor the non-sport fishing activity at a price competitive with the international\nprice, based on the average import cost of the previous month and\nconsidering the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as the\npipeline distribution costs and distribution at racks (distribución en planteles), so\nthat the price is F.O.B. Rack (F.O.B. Plantel). That price shall be\nset by the Servicio Nacional de Electricidad; which must be previously requested\nby RECOPE, as provided in Law No. 6588 of July 30,\n1981, or the Institute. The Institute shall be responsible for the administration and\ncontrol of the efficient use of fuel, destined for non-sport\nfishing activity.” As is noted from the norm, its purpose was to\nestablish a competitive price for the fuel that would be destined for\nnon-sport fishing activity, establishing the F.O.B. rack (F.O.B. plantel) price as a parameter. In accordance with the prior norm,\nthrough resolution RRG-2708-2002, ARESEP\nestablished the extraordinary adjustment formula for determining prices\nfor fuels consumed by the fishing fleet. In accordance with the\nforegoing, the cost structure of gasoline and diesel\nin said cases would comprise: 1) CIF\nrefinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Rack cost (Costo por planteles) 4) Administrative\ncost. Subsequently, in accordance with resolutions RJD-013, 014 and 016-2002 of the Board of Directors of\nARESEP,\nit was agreed that the investments of the service provider must be incorporated within the price structure of the indicated fuels.\nThus, in\naccordance with said administrative act, the respective structure contained:\n1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3)\nRack cost (Costo por planteles) 4) Administrative cost 5) Investment cost. Through resolution\n2774-2002 at eight o'clock on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two, ARESEP\nordered the revocation of the extraordinary adjustment formula for determining the\nfuel prices consumed by the fishing fleet in accordance with\nresolution RRG-2708-2002 and to indicate to the parties that\nprice fixings shall be carried out in accordance with articles 3, 30, and 31 of\nLaw 7593. By reason of the foregoing, the cost structure in accordance\nwith this act contained: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2)\nPipeline cost 3) Rack cost (Costo por planteles) 4) Administrative cost 5) Investment\ncost 6) Service provision costs. It was thus that in practice,\nthis resolution came to equate the rack price (precio plantel) of fuel for\nfishermen to that of any final consumer. Subsequently, by means of\nresolution RRG-2821-2002 at 9:30 a.m. on\nOctober 24, 2002, a fuel price for\nfishermen was contemplated, in accordance with resolution 2772-2002, at rack price, without\ntaxes. It is necessary to indicate that what is provided in the indicated resolution\n2772-2002 starts from the presumption that the provisions of the Ley de Creación de la Autoridad Reguladora\nde Servicios Públicos, Law number 7593, repealed the indicated article 45 of Law 7384, Ley de Creación del\nInstituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, of March 29, 1994, as\nthe referenced administrative conduct expressly indicates. Notwithstanding the foregoing,\nthrough an opinion from the\nSpecialized Legal Directorate of ARESEP\ndated October 21, 2003, the General Regulator was informed\nthat article 45 of Law\n7384 is in force and must be applied above the lower-ranking norms that\ncontradict it. However, this did not result in modifying the price fixing\nindicated above, failing to adapt it to the consideration that said\nnorm was in force and clearly established that the FOB Rack price (precio FOB Plantel),\nshould exclusively take into consideration the average import cost\nof the previous month of the fuel and the C.I.F.\nrefinery cost, as well as the pipeline distribution costs and distribution at\nracks (planteles). The foregoing was reaffirmed subsequently, with article 123\nof Law 8436,\nLey de Pesca y Acuicultura, of April 25, 2005, providing as follows: “Article\n123.—Exempt the national\nfishing fleet, except that dedicated to sport fishing, from all types of\nnational taxes for the importation of vessels, spare parts, motors,\nnavigation and fishing implements, and their respective accessories. In\ncompliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384, of March 16,\n1994, RECOPE shall sell fuel (gasoline,\nregular and diesel) to the national fishing fleet,\nexcept for sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the\ninternational price.” From the text of this last norm, it is evident that\nit reiterates the need for the price that is set to\nbe competitive with the international fuel price, although it does not\nestablish the parameter indicated ut supra. It is necessary to indicate that through Executive Decree (decreto ejecutivo)\n31299-MAG-MINAE, said article 45 was regulated\nin the following sense: “Article 1st-In compliance with the provisions of\narticle 45 of Law No.\n7384 of March 16, 1994, RECOPE shall sell\nfuel (regular gasoline and diesel), to the National\nFishing Fleet, except for sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with\nthe international price. Article 2nd—For the effects of the application of the\npresent Regulation, the following definitions are established: a) PCFPi = It is the Rack Sale Price per Liter of\nFuel (regular gasoline or diesel), consumed by the Non-Sport National\nFishing Fleet. b) CIFRi = It is the monthly cost\nCIF Refinery, per Liter of Fuel, which\nincludes the F.O.B. costs (free on board), as well as\nthe insurance and transport of the fuel (regular gasoline and diesel), placed at the National Unloading Port. It\nshould be interpreted that within this concept, its F.O.B. component, is equal to the one RECOPE used\nas an average in its last extraordinary adjustment, for each of the\nfuels cited above. c) COif = Annual cost per\nliter transferred by Pipeline calculated based on the existing information in\nthe accounting closing of the immediately preceding fiscal period, in accordance with the\nexisting information in the last Available Financial Statement, considering\nas a denominator, the proportional volume of fuels transferred by\nPipeline, destined for the consumption of the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. The amount\nobtained shall be updated with the estimated inflation for the following period. d)\nCPif = Annual cost per liter sold at Racks\ncalculated based on the existing information in the accounting closing of the immediately preceding Fiscal\nPeriod, in accordance with the existing information in the\nlast Available Financial Statement, considering as a denominator, the proportional\nvolume of fuel sold at Racks, during the corresponding\nperiod, destined for the consumption of the Non-Sport National\nFishing Fleet. The amount obtained shall be updated by the inflation\nestimated for the following period. e) International Fuel Price: It shall\nbe determined based on the average of the price that RECOPE\nuses as a reference for the fuels (gasoline, diesel),\nwhich it imports. f) Fuel for Fishing: Covers only the regular gasoline\nvariety and diesel. Article 3rd-The setting of the\nprice of fuels consumed by the Non-Sport National\nFishing Fleet shall be established by exclusively taking into account the following\ncost structure: PCFPi = CIFRi\n+ COif + CPif For: i =\nRegular Gasoline, Diesel f = Fixed until the\nconclusion of the next review. Article 4th- In the determination of the\nprice of fuels destined for the consumption of the Non-Sport National Fishing\nFleet, the amounts corresponding to administration\nexpenses, asset depreciation, port charges, investment,\nmarketing margins or others of a similar nature, shall not be considered, in such a way that\nthe objective that the set price is competitive with international\nprices of the markets that RECOPE uses\nas a reference in the acquisition of fuels is fulfilled. Article 5th-The\nprice requests may be made by RECOPE or INCOPESCA or by the Regulatory Entity ex officio, since the\nprice variations for the\nNon-Sport National Fishing Fleet shall be made following the\nsame Ordinary and Extraordinary variations requested by RECOPE.” (emphasis is\nours). Despite the foregoing, there is no evidence that ARESEP\nmodified the price fixing made in resolution 2774-2002 of\neight o'clock on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two regarding the\nincorporation of administration expenses of RECOPE\nin the fixing of the rack price (precio plantel) of fuel. Said decree was repealed\nby Executive Decree (decreto ejecutivo) 32527-MAG of June 3, 2005, which provided: “Article\n1st-In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384 of March 16,\n1994 and article 123 second paragraph of Law No. 8436 of March 1st,\n2005, RECOPE shall sell fuel (regular gasoline\nand diesel) to the National Fishing\nFleet, except for sport fishing activity, at a competitive price with the\ninternational price. Article 2nd-The price competitive with the international\nprice, for the sale of the fuel mentioned in the previous\narticle, shall be comprised within the rate fixing\ntariff that is carried out, by the application of the single fuel tax\nexemption and the non-incorporation within said price, of the amounts\ncorresponding to administration expenses, asset depreciation, port\ncharges and investment. Article 3rd-The resulting difference in the\ndetermination of the price competitive with the international price, between the\namount corresponding by the application of the single fuel tax\nexemption and the items not incorporated in article second, shall be\nrecognized by the State to the Non-Sport National Fishing Sector starting from the\n\"Agreement for addressing critical issues of the National Fishing\nSector\" signed on January 29, 2008. For this purpose, the Ministry of\nFinance shall incorporate into the national budget the amount corresponding to the\nsubsidy established in Article Second and shall transfer it to the Instituto\nCostarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA),\nthrough the respective transfer. The amount of the subsidy per liter of\nregular gasoline or diesel fuel shall be\ndetermined by INCOPESCA, which, by reason of its\ncompetences, shall be in charge of its allocation to each benefited fisherman,\nits distribution and control, an obligation to render a semi-annual report to the cited\nministry, according to the regulations in force. Article\n4th-The amount corresponding to the items exempted in Article Second\nshall be determined based on the accounting records of RECOPE\nfor the immediately preceding closed fiscal period. For this purpose and in relation to\nsaid period, RECOPE shall provide INCOPESCA the required annual accounting information for the\nquantification of the subsidy per liter: the indicated financial statements, the\ntotal sales of RECOPE in volume, the administrative\nexpenses, the depreciation of assets, the cash investments executed\nand the port charges.” (emphasis is\nours). As is noted, it established the need for fixing\nprices for fishermen’s fuel without taking into consideration administration\nexpenses, among others. However, the court record does not show that ARESEP acted in accordance with said regulatory\nbody, maintaining the internal administrative cost of RECOPE.\nIt is even necessary to indicate that through resolution RRG-9233-2008\nat ten hours twenty minutes on November eleventh, two thousand eight,\nagain based on the validity of article 45 of Law 7384, a rack price (precio\nplantel) without tax is set for fuel prices for non-sport\nfishing equal to that of the distributor for the final consumer at service\nstations. [...]\n\nAlso,\nit is correct when it indicates that the MT and MC factors are not included in the rack\nprice of Recope, given that they correspond to\ntransportation to service stations and commercialization at them. For the\nforegoing reason, it must be noted that the rack price excludes these factors, yet\nit must be taken into consideration that as indicated, the said rack price\nof fuels for fishermen does not differ from that indicated for other\nfinal consumers, except in what corresponds to the exemption from\ncharging the respective tax on fuels, in accordance with the provisions\nof the Tax Simplification and Efficiency Law (Ley\nde Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributaria). Thus, by way of example, the referenced\nresolution RRG-9233-2008 at ten hours twenty\nminutes on November eleventh, two thousand eight, sets\nequal prices for the fuel at rack without tax for the national fishing\nfleet and for the fuel distributor to consumer (see folio 36 of\nthe resolution and 191 of the judicial file). No modification of said\nsituation appears until what is provided in the single article of Law No.\n9134 of June 6, 2013, where the indicated\narticle 45 was authentically interpreted, defining with greater precision the components that could be\ntaken into consideration in setting the prices of fuel for\nfishermen, in the following manner: “... the expression “price\ncompetitive for fuel at the international level”, contained in both\nnorms, which the national non-sport fishing fleet shall receive, is based on the fact that\nthe Costa Rican fishing sector shall acquire from the Refinadora Costarricense\nde Petróleo (Recope), or from the entity legally\nauthorized for the importation of hydrocarbons into the country, the fuel,\nfinished product (gasoline and diesel), at a price\nthat shall comprise only the following items: a) Value of the product\ncost (refined product: purchase invoice amount. Non-\nrefined product: refining cost in Costa Rica). b) The freight to the port of\ndestination in Costa Rica. c) The insurance corresponding to the fuel. d) The\ncost for transfer of the final product, within the national territory, to the\ndistribution point. e) The storage and pumping cost for the rack,\nwhere the sale is made. These values shall be set based on the average\nimport cost of the previous month, or the latest similar information\navailable. No general price calculation model may cover the\nfuel destined for the national non-sport fishing sector, therefore the Autoridad Reguladora\nde los Servicios Públicos (Aresep) must exclude\nany other item or component considered in the setting of the common price\nfor these fuels. INCOPESCA shall be in charge of\nthe administration and control of the efficient use of fuel destined for\nnon-sport fishing activity...” In accordance with the foregoing,\nthis Tribunal has held it as proven that, based on the false premise of the\nrepeal of article 45 of\nLaw 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y\nAcuicultura, of March 29, 1994, ARESEP proceeded to\nequate the rack price (precio plantel) of fishermen (excluding the respective\ntax) with that of any other final consumer, and incorporating into this\nconcept a series of items not originally contemplated in the fixings\nprior to the administrative acts of resolutions 2774-2002 at eight\no'clock on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two and RRG-2821-2002\nat 9:30 a.m. on October 24, 2002. With the foregoing, it is evident that\nwhat was provided in the indicated article was partially breached, given that\nin the setting of the rack price, other costs different from those\nexpressly established in\nLaw 7384 were used. Consequently, the two advantages that\nnon-artisanal fishermen obtained were the following: a) acquisition of the product\nat rack price, without charging transport costs outside the rack and\nmarketing (with the caveat that as has been indicated, the referred\nrack price was progressively loaded with costs originally not contemplated) and b) the\nexemption from payment of the single tax on fuels. However, it is\nnot appropriate to accept the lawsuit, insofar as the plaintiff party, on one\nhand, did not request the nullity of the respective administrative acts and, on the other,\nthe representative of the plaintiff did not prove that with the changes in the items to\nconsider in the price of fuels for fishermen, the price of\nthose had ceased to be competitive with the international market, just\nas the norm expressly establishes, in addition to the lack of proof of the\ndamage invoked, as will be indicated later. Even if, as has been\nindicated, the different mentioned ARESEP resolutions\nhad the consequence of equating the rack price of fishermen\nwith that of any final consumer (less the respective tax), this does\nnot mean per se, that it had as a\nconsequence, an incidence such that it implied that the national rack price\nhad ceased to possess competitiveness with the international market, taking\ninto consideration additionally that in the case of fuels for fishermen they did not\nhave to pay the single fuel tax, which logically, had\nadditional incidence on the national price vis-à-vis the exterior. It was incumbent upon\nthe plaintiff party to demonstrate this aspect through the presentation of suitable\ntechnical evidence, given that this Tribunal cannot start from mere presumptions\nregarding the consequences of the mentioned acts with respect to\ncompetitiveness with international prices, insofar as we are\nin the presence of rack prices (which do not have incorporated the costs for\ntransport to service stations and commercialization at these) and that\nfurthermore do not include the payment of the respective tax. In accordance with the\nconsiderations made previously, article 317 of the Civil\nProcedure Code is applied, insofar as it provides: “The burden of proof rests: 1) With\nthe person who formulates a claim, regarding the affirmative statements of the facts\nconstituting their right. 2) With the person who opposes a claim, regarding the\naffirmative statements of facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the right\nof the plaintiff.” On the burden of proof, it has been said on some other\noccasion, that: “..., in order to what is provided in article 317 of the Civil\nProcedure Code: “(...) The burden of proof does not suppose, then, any right of the\nadversary, but rather an imperative of the own interest of each litigant; it is a\ncircumstance of risk consisting in the fact that whoever does not prove the facts that they have\nto prove, loses the lawsuit. This burden can be lifted, by proving, that is\nto say, by accrediting the truth of the facts that the Law indicates. And this does not create,\nevidently, a right in the adversary, as if a personal legal situation\npertaining to each party; the burden of not lending belief to the\naffirmations that it was necessary to prove and were not proven… it is the same not to prove as not\nto exist (…)”. (Vote number 262 at nine hours forty minutes on\nJune seventeenth, nineteen ninety-four, of the Second Civil Superior Tribunal,\nFirst Section). In accordance with the foregoing, the mere\ninvocation by the party is not sufficient, if there does not exist a solid probative\nfoundation that serves to demonstrate the alleged facts or defenses. By\nreason that the party requests the legality analysis, not for the purposes of\nremoving the conducts from the legal world, but exclusively for compensatory\npurposes, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that beyond the\nexistence or not of defects in the administrative conduct, this had an\nunlawful consequence that could be productive\nof damaging effects in its legal sphere. However, far from this, the court record\ndoes not show that the existence of negative changes in the\nnational competitiveness with respect to international fuel\nprices has been demonstrated, nor the incidence of the ARESEP decisions\nin that sense, which may be identifiable, differentiable,\nand individualizable from other internal and external\nsituations to the country that could have had an incidence on an eventual loss of the\npossibility to compete of our national fishermen. As the\nplaintiff party well indicates, the purpose of the norm was to protect the competitiveness of\nnational fishermen vis-à-vis the international market, so that it did not\ndemonstrate that in the case under analysis, a distortion of the\nrack prices of the country occurred such that it had an impact on said objective. Additionally,\nthis Tribunal considers it necessary to refer to the allegation of ARESEP\nregarding the fact that its actions were taken in exercise of its competences. In\nthis sense, even if it is clear that the Authority Regulating\nPublic Services possesses sufficient competences to impose upon\nthe concessionaires of the public service the rules that must be followed for\nthe fixing of the tariff or the tariff adjustment, so\nthat the choice of the price and tariff-setting methodology is a\ntechnical issue, and consequently, it can use the\nmethodologies that are compatible with the cost-of-service principle\nestablished in article 3 of the\nLey de Creación de la ARESEP, it must be remembered\nthat it can exercise its regulatory competences\nbut within the framework of the legal order without failing to apply what is provided in the Law, nor emptying the content of the\nrespective norm. In this order of ideas, its technical discretion must\nbe exercised within the framework of the legal order and if said order establishes\nlimits, it is not appropriate that via interpretation a specific provision be considered\ninapplicable or that items not contemplated in a concrete law be incorporated\ninto the prices, when the legislator has opted to define\nthe scopes of the components of a given price (as happened in\nthe case of the administrative act of resolution 2774-2002 at eight hours on\nSeptember twenty-sixth, two thousand two. Even if ARESEP\nsets its tariffs in accordance with the cost-of-service principle, the\ncertain fact is that there was a valid, effective, and in-force norm, which established a\ndetermined fixing method, in line with the legal interests that the\nlegislator at that time decided to protect, and it is not appropriate that by administrative\nact, said exceptional situation foreseen by the\nlegal order be ignored. When the norm mentions the FOB rack price, it cannot\nbe analyzed decontextualized from the rest of the norm, which indicates that the price to\nset shall be “based on the average import cost of the previous month\nand considering the C.I.F. cost.\n\n…refinery, as well as\nthe costs of distribution by pipeline and distribution at terminals…\", without\nmentioning other costs integrated into the price later by mere\ninterpretation of ARESEP. In any case, as has been\nindicated, the corresponding administrative conducts have not been challenged and\nwith respect to their consequences, as has been said and will be further explored\nbelow, there is not the slightest proof of a harmful result against the\nplaintiff […].”\n\nIt is also correct when it indicates that the MT and MC factors are not included in the\nplantel price of Recope, given that they correspond to\ntransportation to service stations and commercialization at those stations. For the\nabove, it must be noted that the plantel price excludes these factors, but\nit should be taken into consideration that, as indicated, the indicated plantel price\nof fuels for fishermen *does not differ from that set for other\nfinal consumers*, except in what corresponds to the exoneration of\nthe respective fuel tax, in accordance with what\nis established in the Tax Simplification and Efficiency Law. Thus, by way of example, the referenced\nresolution RRG-9233-2008 of ten hours and twenty minutes on the eleventh of November of two thousand\neight, sets equal prices for fuel at the terminal without tax for the national fishing fleet\nand for the fuel distributor to the consumer (see page 36 of\nthe resolution and 191 of the judicial file).\n\nNo modification of said situation is recorded until the provisions of the sole article of Law No. 9134 of June 6, 2013, which authentically interpreted the indicated article 45, defining with greater precision the components that could be taken into consideration in setting fuel prices for fishermen, as follows: \"<i>... the expression 'competitive international fuel price,' contained in both norms, which the national non-sport fishing fleet will receive, is based on the fact that the Costa Rican fishing sector will acquire from the Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo (Recope), or from the entity legally authorized to import hydrocarbons into the country, the fuel, finished product (gasoline and diesel), at a price that will comprise only the following items: a) Product cost value (refined product: purchase invoice amount. Unrefined product: refining cost in Costa Rica). b) Freight to the port of destination in Costa Rica. c) Insurance corresponding to the fuel. d) The cost of transporting the final product, within the national territory, to the distribution point. e) The cost of storage and pumping for the facility where the sale is made. These values will be set based on the average import cost of the previous month, or the latest similar information available. No general price calculation model may cover fuel destined for the national non-sport fishing sector; therefore, the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos (Aresep) must exclude any other item or component considered in setting the common price of these fuels. Incopesca will be responsible for the administration and control of the efficient use of fuel destined for non-sport fishing activity...\". </i>In accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal has deemed it proven that, based on the false premise of the derogation of article 45 of Law 7384, the Law Creating the Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, of March 29, 1994, ARESEP proceeded to equate the plant price for fishermen (excluding the respective tax) with that of any other final consumer, and incorporating into this concept a series of items not originally contemplated in the price settings prior to the administrative acts of resolutions 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two, and RRG-2821-2002 of 9:30 hours on October 24, 2002. Given the above, it is evident that the provisions of the indicated article were partially breached, given that other costs different from those expressly established in Law 7384 were used in setting the plant price. Consequently, the two advantages obtained by non-artisanal fishermen were the following: a) acquisition of the product at the plant price, without bearing transportation costs outside the plant and commercialization (with the caveat that, as indicated, the referred plant price was gradually burdened with costs originally not contemplated) and b) exemption from payment of the single fuel tax. However, it is not appropriate to grant the claim, insofar as the plaintiff, on the one hand, did not request the nullity of the respective administrative acts and, on the other, the plaintiff's representation did not prove that, with the changes in the items to be considered in fuel prices for fishermen, the price thereof ceased to be competitive with the international market, as expressly established by the norm, in addition to the lack of proof of the alleged damage, as will be indicated later. Although, as has been indicated, the different resolutions of ARESEP mentioned resulted in equating the plant price for fishermen with that of any final consumer (minus the respective tax), this does not mean per se that it resulted in an incidence such that it implied that the national plant price ceased to possess competitiveness with the international market, also taking into consideration that in the case of fuels for fishermen, the single fuel tax did not have to be paid, which logically had an additional impact on the national price compared to the exterior. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate this aspect through the presentation of suitable technical evidence, given that this Tribunal cannot rely on mere presumptions regarding the consequences of the mentioned acts concerning competitiveness with international prices, since we are in the presence of plant prices (which do not incorporate the costs of transportation to service stations and commercialization therein) and which, moreover, do not include the payment of the respective tax. In accordance with the considerations made above, article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code is applied, as it provides: \"<i>The burden of proof falls upon: 1) Whoever formulates a claim, regarding the assertions of the facts constituting their right. 2) Whoever opposes a claim, regarding the assertions of facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the plaintiff's right</i>\". Regarding the burden of proof, it has been stated on another occasion that:<i> \"…, in order to the provisions of article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code: \"(…) The burden of proof does not suppose, therefore, any right of the adversary, but rather an imperative of each litigant's own interest; it is a circumstance of risk consisting of the fact that whoever does not prove the facts they must prove, loses the case. One can relieve oneself of this burden by proving, that is, by accrediting the truth of the facts that the Law indicates. And this does not create, evidently, a right in the adversary, as if it were a personal juridical situation pertaining to each party; the encumbrance of not lending belief to the assertions that were necessary to prove and were not proven... it is the same not to prove as not to exist (…)\".</i> (Vote number 262 of nine hours forty minutes on the seventeenth of June, nineteen ninety-four, of the Tribunal Superior Segundo Civil, Sección Primera). In accordance with the foregoing, the mere invocation by the party is not sufficient if there is no solid evidentiary basis that serves to demonstrate the facts or defenses alleged. Given that the party requests the analysis of legality, not for the purpose of extracting conduct from the legal world, but exclusively for indemnification purposes, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that beyond the existence or not of defects in the administrative conduct, this conduct had an unlawful (antijurídica) consequence that could be the cause of harmful effects in their legal sphere. However, far from it, the case file does not show that the existence of negative changes in national competitiveness with respect to international fuel prices was demonstrated, nor the incidence of ARESEP's decisions in that sense, that could be identifiable, differentiable, and individualizable from other internal and external situations to the country that could have influenced an eventual loss of the possibility for our national fishermen to compete. As the plaintiff rightly indicates, the purpose of the norm was to protect the competitiveness of national fishermen against the international market, and as such, they did not demonstrate that in the case under analysis, a distortion of the country's plant prices occurred such that it affected that objective. Additionally, this Tribunal deems it necessary to refer to ARESEP's allegation that its actions were taken in the exercise of its competencies. In this sense, although it is clear that the Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos possesses sufficient competencies to impose on the concessionaires of the public service the rules to be followed for setting the tariff or tariff adjustment, and that the choice of the methodology for setting prices and tariffs is a problem of a technical nature and, consequently, methodologies compatible with the principle of service at cost established in article 3 of the Law Creating ARESEP may be used, it must be remembered that it may exercise its regulatory (regulatorias) competencies but within the framework of the legal order, without disregarding the provisions of the Law, nor stripping the respective norm of its content. In this vein, its technical discretion must be exercised within the framework of the legal order, and if the legal order establishes limits, it is not appropriate that, by way of interpretation, a specific provision be considered inapplicable or that items not contemplated in a specific law be incorporated into prices, when the legislator has opted to define the scope of the components of a specific price (as happened in the case of administrative act resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on September twenty-seventh, two thousand two). Although ARESEP sets its tariffs in accordance with the principle of service at cost, the truth is that there was a valid, effective, and in-force norm that established a specific setting method, in order to the legal interests that the legislator at the time decided to protect, and it is not appropriate that, through an administrative act, this exceptional situation provided for by the legal order be ignored. When the norm mentions the FOB plant price, it cannot be analyzed out of context from the rest of the norm, which indicates that the price to be set will be \"<i>based on the average import cost of the previous month and considering the C.I.F. cost at the refinery, as well as pipeline distribution costs and plant distribution...\", </i>without mentioning other costs integrated into the price later by mere interpretation by ARESEP. In any case, as has been indicated, the corresponding administrative conduct has not been objected to, and with respect to its consequences, as has been stated and will be further elaborated below, there is not the slightest proof of a harmful result against the plaintiff […].”\n\nIn accordance with the foregoing, the cost structure for gasoline and diesel in those cases would comprise: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Plant cost 4) Administrative cost. Subsequently, in accordance with resolutions RJD-013, 014 and 016-2002 of the Board of Directors of ARESEP, it was agreed that within the price structure of the indicated fuels, the service provider's investments had to be incorporated. Thus, in accordance with said administrative act, the respective structure contained: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Plant cost 4) Administrative cost 5) Investment cost. By means of resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on the twenty-sixth of September, two thousand two, ARESEP ordered the revocation of the extraordinary adjustment formula for determining the fuel prices consumed by the fishing fleet in accordance with resolution RRG-2708-2002 and instructed the parties that price fixings shall be carried out pursuant to articles 3, 30 and 31 of Law 7593. On account of the above, the cost structure in accordance with this act contained: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Plant cost 4) Administrative cost 5) Investment cost 6) service provision costs. It is thus that in practice, this resolution came to equate the plant price (precio plantel) of fuel for fishers to that of any final consumer. Subsequently, by means of resolution RRG-2821-2002 of 9:30 hours on 24 October 2002, a fuel price for fishers was contemplated, in accordance with resolution 2772-2002, at plant price, without taxes. It is necessary to indicate that what is ordered in the indicated resolution 2772-2002 starts from the presumption that the provisions of the Law creating the Public Services Regulatory Authority, Law Number 7593, repealed the indicated article 45 of Law 7384, Law creating the Fisheries and Aquaculture Institute, of 29 March 1994, just as the referenced administrative conduct expressly indicates. Notwithstanding the foregoing, by means of a criterion of the Specialized Legal Directorate of ARESEP dated 21 October 2003, the Reguladora General was advised that article 45 of Law 7384 is in force and must be applied over lower-ranking norms that contradict it. However, this did not result in modifying the price fixing indicated previously, omitting to adjust it to the consideration that said norm was in force and clearly established that the FOB Plant price must exclusively consider the average import cost of the previous month's fuel and the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as the distribution costs by pipeline and distribution in plants. The foregoing is reaffirmed subsequently, with article 123 of Law 8436, Fisheries and Aquaculture Law, of 25 April 2005, which ordered the following: \"Article 123.—Exempt the national fishing fleet, except that dedicated to sport fishing, from all types of national taxes for the importation of vessels, spare parts, motors, navigation implements, fishing implements and their respective accessories. In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384, of 16 March 1994, RECOPE shall sell fuel (gasoline, regular and diesel) to the national fishing fleet, except for sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the international price\". From the text of this last norm it is evident that it comes to reiterate the necessity that the price fixing made be competitive with the international fuel price, although the parameter indicated ut supra is not established. It is necessary to indicate that by means of Executive Decree 31299-MAG-MINAE, article 45 was regulated in the following sense: \"Article 1º-In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384 of 16 March 1994, RECOPE shall sell fuel (regular gasoline and diesel), to the National Fishing Fleet, except sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the international price. Article 2º—For the purposes of the application of this Regulation, the following definitions are established: a) PCFPi = Is the Plant Sale Price per Liter of Fuel (regular gasoline or diesel), consumed by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. b) CIFRi = Is the monthly CIF Refinery cost, per Liter of Fuel, which includes the F.O.B. costs (free on board), as well as the insurance and transport of the fuel (regular gasoline and diesel), placed at the National Port of Unloading. It shall be interpreted that within this concept, its F.O.B. component is equal to that used by RECOPE as an average in its last extraordinary adjustment, for each of the aforementioned fuels. c) COif = Annual cost per liter transported by Pipeline calculated based on the information existing in the accounting close of the immediately preceding fiscal period, in accordance with the information existing in the last Available Financial Statement, considering as denominator, the proportional volume of fuels transported by Pipeline, destined for consumption by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. The amount obtained shall be updated with the estimated inflation for the following period. d) CPif = Annual cost per liter sold in Plants calculated based on the information existing in the accounting close of the immediately preceding Fiscal Period, in accordance with the information existing in the last Available Financial Statement, considering as denominator, the proportional volume of fuel sold in Plants, during the corresponding period, destined for consumption by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. The amount obtained shall be updated by the estimated inflation for the following period. e) International Fuel Price: Shall be determined based on the average of the price that RECOPE uses as a reference for the fuels (gasoline, diesel), that it imports. f) Fuel for Fishing: Encompasses only the regular gasoline variety and diesel. Article 3º-The fixing of the price of fuels consumed by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet shall be established taking into account only the following cost structure: PCFPi = CIFRi + COif + CPif For: i = Regular Gasoline, Diesel f = Fixed until the conclusion of the next review. Article 4º- In the determination of the price of fuels destined for consumption by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet, the amounts corresponding to administration expenses, asset depreciation, port charges, investment, marketing margins or others of a similar nature shall not be considered, in such a way that the objective that the fixed price be competitive with the international prices of the markets that RECOPE uses as a reference in the acquisition of fuels is fulfilled. Article 5º-Price requests may be made by RECOPE or INCOPESCA or by the Regulatory body ex officio, inasmuch as the price variations for the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet shall be made following the same Ordinary and Extraordinary variations requested by RECOPE.\" (emphasis is ours). Despite the foregoing, there is no proof that ARESEP has modified the price fixing made in resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on the twenty-sixth of September, two thousand two regarding the incorporation of RECOPE's administration expenses in the fixing of the plant price of fuel. Said decree was repealed by Executive Decree 32527-MAG of 3 June 2005, which ordered: \"Article 1º-In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384 of 16 March 1994 and article 123 second paragraph of Law No. 8436 of 1 March 2005, RECOPE shall sell fuel (regular gasoline and diesel) to the National Fishing Fleet, except sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the international price. Article 2º-The price competitive with the international price, for the sale of the fuel mentioned in the previous article, shall be comprised within the tariff fixing that is made, by the application of the exception of the single fuel tax and the non-incorporation within said price, of the amounts corresponding to administration expenses, asset depreciation, port charges and investment. Article 3º-The resulting difference in the determination of the competitive price with the international price, between the amount corresponding to the application of the exception of the single fuel tax and the items not incorporated in the second article, shall be recognized by the State to the Non-Sport National Fishing Sector starting from the \"Agreement for addressing critical issues of the National Fishing Sector\" signed on 29 January 2008. To this end, the Ministry of Finance shall incorporate in the national budget the amount corresponding to the subsidy established in the Second Article and shall transfer it to the Costa Rican Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INCOPESCA), through the respective transfer. The amount of the subsidy per liter of regular gasoline or diesel fuel shall be determined by INCOPESCA, which by reason of its competencies, shall be in charge of its allocation to each benefited fisher, its distribution and control, having to render a semi-annual report to the cited ministry, in accordance with the regulations in force. article 4º-The amount corresponding to the items excepted in the Second Article shall be determined based on the accounting records of RECOPE from the immediately preceding closed fiscal period. To this end and in relation to said period, RECOPE shall supply INCOPESCA with the required annual accounting information for the quantification of the subsidy per liter: the indicated financial statements, the total sales of RECOPE in volume, the administrative expenses, the asset depreciation, the executed cash investments and the port charges\". (emphasis is ours). As noted, it established the necessity of fixing prices for fuel for fishers without taking into consideration administration expenses among others. However, it is not recorded in the case file that ARESEP has acted in accordance with said normative body, maintaining RECOPE's internal administrative cost. It is even necessary to indicate that by means of resolution RRG-9233-2008 of ten hours twenty minutes on the eleventh of November, two thousand eight, again based on the validity of article 45 of Law 7384, a plant price without tax is fixed for non-sport fishing fuel prices equal to that of the distributor for the final consumer at service stations. […] \n\nAlso, it is correct when it indicates that the MT and MC factors are not included in RECOPE's plant price, given that they correspond to the transport to service stations and marketing at these. Therefore, it must be noted that the plant price excludes these factors, but it must be taken into consideration that as indicated, the indicated plant price of fuels for fishers does not differ from that set for other final consumers, except in what corresponds to the exemption from charging the respective fuel tax, in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Tax Simplification and Efficiency. Thus, by way of example, the referred resolution RRG-9233-2008 of ten hours twenty minutes on the eleventh of November, two thousand eight, fixes equal prices for plant fuel without tax for the national fishing fleet and for the fuel distributor to consumer (see folio 36 of the resolution and 191 of the judicial expediente). No modification of said situation is recorded until the provisions of the single article of Law N° 9134 of 6 June 2013, where the indicated article 45 was authentically interpreted, which defines with greater precision the components that could be taken into consideration in fixing fuel prices for fishers, in the following manner: \"... the expression \"competitive fuel price at an international level\", contained in both norms, which the non-sport national fishing fleet shall receive, is based on that the Costa Rican fishing sector shall acquire from the Costa Rican Petroleum Refinery (Recope), or from the entity legally authorized for the importation of hydrocarbons into the country, the fuel, finished product (gasoline and diesel), at a price that shall comprise only the following items: a) Product cost value (refined product: amount of the purchase invoice. Unrefined product: cost of refining in Costa Rica). b) Freight to the port of destination in Costa Rica. c) The insurances corresponding to the fuel. d) The cost for transferring the final product, within the national territory, to the distribution point. e) The cost of storage and pumping for the plant, where the sale is made. These values shall be fixed based on the average import cost of the previous month, or the last similar information available. No general price calculation model may encompass the fuel destined for the non-sport national fishing sector, therefore the Public Services Regulatory Authority (Aresep) must exclude any other item or component considered in the fixing of the common price of these fuels. Incopesca shall be in charge of the administration and control of the efficient use of the fuel destined for non-sport fishing activity...\". In accordance with the foregoing, this Court has deemed it proven that, founded on the false premise of the derogation of article 45 of Law 7384, Law creating the Fisheries and Aquaculture Institute, of 29 March 1994, ARESEP proceeded to equate the plant price of fishers (excluding the respective tax) with that of any other final consumer, and incorporating in this concept a series of items not originally contemplated in the fixings prior to the administrative acts of resolutions 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on the twenty-sixth of September, two thousand two and RRG-2821-2002 of 9:30 hours on 24 October 2002. With the foregoing, it is evident that the provisions of the indicated article were partially breached, given that costs other than those expressly established in Law 7384 were used in the fixing of the plant price. Consequently, the two advantages that non-artisanal fishers obtained were the following: a) acquisition of the product at plant price, without charging transport costs outside the plant and marketing (with the exception that, as has been indicated, costs originally not contemplated were progressively loaded onto the referred plant price) and b) the exemption from paying the single fuel tax. However, it is not appropriate to accept the claim, inasmuch as the plaintiff, on the one hand, did not request the nullity of the respective administrative acts and on the other, the plaintiff's representation did not prove that with the changes in the items to consider in the price of fuels for fishers, the price thereof ceased to be competitive with the international market, just as the norm expressly establishes, besides the lack of proof of the invoked damage, as will be indicated subsequently. Although, as has been indicated, the different resolutions of ARESEP mentioned had as a consequence the equalization of the plant price of fishers with that of any final consumer (minus the respective tax), it does not mean per se, that it had as a consequence, such an incidence that implied that the national plant price ceased to possess competitiveness with the international market, additionally taking into consideration that in the case of fishers' fuels, the single fuel tax did not have to be paid, which is logical, had additional incidence on the national price compared to the outside. It corresponded to the plaintiff to demonstrate this aspect through the presentation of suitable technical proof, given that this Court cannot start from mere presumptions regarding the consequences of the mentioned acts with respect to competitiveness with international prices, inasmuch as we are in the presence of plant prices (which do not have incorporated the costs for transport to service stations and marketing at these) and that additionally do not include the payment of the respective tax. In accordance with the considerations made previously, article 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies, inasmuch as it orders: \"The burden of proof is incumbent upon: 1) He who formulates a claim, regarding the affirmations of the constitutive facts of his right. 2) He who opposes a claim, regarding the affirmations of impeditive, modifying or extinctive facts of the plaintiff's right\". About the burden of proof it has been said on some other occasion, that: \"..., in order to the provisions of article 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure: \"(…) The burden of proof does not suppose, then, any right of the adversary, but an imperative of the own interest of each litigant; it is a circumstance of risk that consists in that he who does not prove the facts he has to prove, loses the lawsuit. He can remove this burden from himself, by proving, that is, accrediting the truth of the facts that the Law indicates. And this does not create, evidently, a right in the adversary, as if a personal legal situation pertaining to each party; the encumbrance of not giving belief to the affirmations that it was necessary to prove and were not proven... it is the same not to prove as not to exist (…)\". (Vote number 262 of nine hours forty minutes on the seventeenth of June, nineteen ninety-four, of the Second Civil Superior Court, First Section). In accordance with the foregoing, the mere invocation of the party is not sufficient, if there does not exist a solid evidentiary foundation that serves as demonstration of the facts or defenses that are alleged. On the grounds that the party requests the legality analysis, not for the purposes of extracting the conducts from the legal world, but exclusively for indemnification purposes, it corresponded to the plaintiff to demonstrate that beyond the existence or not of vices in the administrative conduct, this had an unlawful (antijurídica) consequence that could be a cause of harmful effects in his legal sphere. However, far from it, it is not recorded in the case file that the existence of negative changes in national competitiveness with respect to international fuel prices has been demonstrated, nor the incidence of ARESEP's decisions in that sense, that can be identifiable, differentiable and individualizable from other internal and external situations to the country that could have had an incidence on an eventual loss of the possibility of competing by our national fishers. As the plaintiff well indicates, the purpose of the norm was to protect the competitiveness of national fishers compared to the international market, being so that he did not demonstrate that in the case under analysis a distortion of the country's plant prices occurred such that it had an incidence on that objective. Additionally, this Court deems it necessary to refer to the allegation of ARESEP with respect to that what was done was done in exercise of its competencies. In this sense, although it is clear that the Public Services Regulatory Authority possesses sufficient competencies to impose on the public service concessionaires the rules that must be followed for the fixing of the tariff or the tariff adjustment, being so that the choice of the methodology for fixing prices and tariffs is a problem of a technical nature and consequently the methodologies that are compatible with the principle of service at cost established in article 3 of the Law creating ARESEP can be used, it must be remembered that it can exercise its regulatory competencies but within the framework of the legal order without disapplying the provisions of the Law, nor emptying the respective norm of content. In this order of ideas, its technical discretion must be exercised within the framework of the legal order and if the same establishes limits, it is not appropriate that by way of interpretation a specific provision be considered inapplicable or items not contemplated in a specific law be incorporated into the prices, when the legislator has opted to define the scope of the components of a determined price (just as it occurred in the case of the administrative act of resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on the twenty-sixth of September, two thousand two. Although ARESEP fixes its tariffs in accordance with the principle of service at cost, the truth is that there was a valid, effective and in-force norm, which established a specific fixing method, in order to the legal interests that the legislator at the time decided to protect and it is not appropriate that by means of an administrative act said exceptional situation foreseen by the legal order is ignored. When the norm mentions the FOB plant price it cannot be analyzed out of context from the rest of the norm that indicates that the price to be fixed shall be \"based on the average import cost of the previous month and considering the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as the distribution costs by pipeline and distribution in plants...\", without mentioning other costs integrated into the price later by mere interpretation by ARESEP. In any case, as has been indicated, the corresponding administrative conducts have not been challenged and with respect to their consequences, as has been said and shall be further delved into below, there is not the slightest proof of a harmful result against the plaintiff […].”"
}