{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-163510", "citation": "Res. 00016-2017 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Interpretación conforme del artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 sobre cobro del canon", "title_en": "Interpretation of Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 regarding fee collection", "summary_es": "El caso trata sobre la legalidad del cobro del canon de una concesión en zona marítimo terrestre que no fue aprobada por el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (ICT). El actor argumentó que, al requerir la concesión aprobación del ICT según los artículos 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, el cobro era improcedente hasta que dicha aprobación se diera. La Municipalidad de Parrita se basó en el artículo 44 del Reglamento para exigir el pago desde la firma del contrato. El Tribunal, en lugar de anular la norma, realizó una interpretación conforme: declaró que el artículo 44 del Reglamento no es ilegal siempre que se interprete en armonía con los artículos 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la LGAP. Esto implica que el canon solo puede cobrarse una vez que el ICT apruebe la concesión y se comunique al interesado, excepto en casos donde no se requiera aprobación. Adicionalmente, el Tribunal anuló los cobros específicos realizados al actor y ordenó no cobrar hasta que el ICT apruebe la concesión, previa subsanación de defectos.", "summary_en": "The case addresses the legality of collecting a concession fee in the maritime-terrestrial zone when the concession has not been approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Board (ICT). The plaintiff argued that, since the concession required ICT approval under Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Act, collection was improper until such approval was granted. The Municipality of Parrita relied on Article 44 of the Regulation to demand payment from the contract signing. The Court, instead of striking down the rule, applied a conforming interpretation: it declared that Article 44 of the Regulation is not illegal as long as it is interpreted in harmony with Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the LGAP. This means the fee can only be collected once the ICT approves the concession and notifies the interested party, except in cases where no approval is required. Additionally, the Court annulled the specific collection actions against the plaintiff and ordered the municipality not to collect until ICT approval is obtained, provided the underlying defects are corrected.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V", "date": "2017", "year": "2017", "topic_ids": [], "primary_topic_id": null, "es_concept_hints": [ "zona marítimo terrestre", "canon", "concesión", "Ley 6043", "Reglamento a la Ley 6043", "ICT", "interpretación conforme", "nulidad absoluta", "actos administrativos eficaces", "Patrimonio Natural del Estado" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 42", "law": "Ley 6043" }, { "article": "Art. 30", "law": "Ley 6043" }, { "article": "Art. 145", "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 140", "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 141", "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 44", "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 7841" }, { "article": "Art. 82", "law": "Ley 9036" } ], "keywords_es": [ "canon", "zona marítimo terrestre", "concesión", "Ley 6043", "ICT", "Municipalidad de Parrita", "artículo 44", "interpretación conforme", "nulidad absoluta", "cobro" ], "keywords_en": [ "canon fee", "maritime terrestrial zone", "concession", "Law 6043", "ICT", "Municipality of Parrita", "Article 44", "conforming interpretation", "absolute nullity", "collection" ], "excerpt_es": "En consecuencia, resulta contrario a los principios de jerarquía de las fuentes y de legalidad, que en el numeral 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, se establezca –con excepción del supuesto de concesiones dadas en áreas de la zona marítimo terrestre que no sean de aptitud turística, ni que constituyan islas o islotes, a consecuencia de la reforma legal vigente desde el 30 de noviembre del 2012- que el cobro del canon se realice inmediatamente después de que el Concejo Municipal acuerde otorgar la concesión y de que se firme el contrato respectivo entre el ente municipal y el concesionario, ello por cuanto, dichos actos no son eficaces hasta tanto el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo o la Asamblea Legislativa aprueben la concesión otorgada y se comunique lo correspondiente al interesado (artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública)... Ahora bien, dado que de manera sobrevenida se modificó de manera parcial el artículo 42 de la Ley de la 6043 en los términos antes indicados, considera este Tribunal que no resulta ilegal el artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, en el tanto se interprete conforme a lo dispuesto en los numerales 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, lo cual implica, que el canon podrá ser cobrado por el ente municipal a partir de que se apruebe la concesión por el órgano o el ente competente, y se comunique al interesado en los términos del artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública.", "excerpt_en": "Consequently, it is contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources and legality, that in Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043, it is established –with the exception of concessions in areas of the maritime-terrestrial zone that are not of tourist aptitude, nor constitute islands or islets, as a consequence of the legal reform in force since November 30, 2012– that the fee must be collected immediately after the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the respective contract is signed between the municipal entity and the concessionaire, because such acts are not effective until the Costa Rican Tourism Board or the Legislative Assembly approves the granted concession and the corresponding notification is made to the interested party (Article 140 of the General Public Administration Act)... However, given that Article 42 of Law 6043 was partially amended in the aforementioned terms, this Court considers that Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 is not illegal, as long as it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Act, which implies that the fee may be collected by the municipal entity once the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and notice is given to the interested party under the terms of Article 140 of the General Public Administration Act.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Partially granted", "label_es": "Parcialmente con lugar", "summary_en": "The lack-of-right exception is rejected and the lawsuit is partially granted, ordering a conforming interpretation of Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 that makes fee collection conditional on ICT approval, and annulling the municipality's prior collection requests.", "summary_es": "Se rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho y se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda, disponiendo una interpretación conforme del artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 que condiciona el cobro del canon a la aprobación del ICT, y anulando los requerimientos de cobro previos del municipio." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "… the fee may be collected by the municipal entity once the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and notice is given to the interested party under the terms of Article 140 of the General Public Administration Act.", "quote_es": "… el canon podrá ser cobrado por el ente municipal a partir de que se apruebe la concesión por el órgano o el ente competente, y se comunique al interesado en los términos del artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "… applying that regulatory provision to the specific case, in a literal, isolated and discordant manner with Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Act, implies a manifest violation of the principles of legality and hierarchy of sources…", "quote_es": "… aplicar esa disposición reglamentaria al caso concreto, de manera literal aislada y discordante con los artículos 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, implica una violación manifiesta a los principios de legalidad y de jerarquía de las fuentes…" }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "… the Municipality has also incurred a violation of the provisions of Article 10 of the General Public Administration Act, since it limited itself to literally, isolatedly and illegally applying the provisions of Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 to the detriment of the plaintiff…", "quote_es": "… la Municipalidad también ha incurrido en una violación a lo dispuesto en el numeral 10 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, toda vez que se limitó a aplicar de manera literal, aislada e ilegal lo dispuesto en el artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 en perjuicio del accionante…" } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-32006", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 6043 Art. 42" }, { "target_id": "norm-18579", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Decreto Ejecutivo 7841 Art. 44" }, { "target_id": "norm-72582", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 9036 Art. 82" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-163510", "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-18579", "norm_num": "7841", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "16/12/1977" }, { "doc_id": "norm-32006", "norm_num": "6043", "norm_name": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/03/1977" }, { "doc_id": "norm-72582", "norm_num": "9036", "norm_name": "Ley de Transformación del IDA en INDER y Creación de la Secretaría Técnica de Desarrollo Rural", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "11/05/2012" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“IIo.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO. La parte\r\n ACTORA sostiene: 1) Alega que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los\r\nartículos 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública,\r\nel cobro del canon que pretende la Municipalidad\r\nde Parrita, es improcedente, ya que la Concesión sobre la parcela solicitada no\r\nse aprobó por parte del ICT, en virtud de encontrarse\r\nen zona turística, de acuerdo con el Plan Regulador de Playa Esterillos. Indica\r\nque la aprobación por parte del ICT constituye un\r\nrequisito sine qua non, para que el administrado pueda hacer uso y disfrute del\r\nbien solicitado en concesión, incluyendo el levantamiento de las construcciones\r\nque sean necesarias para el disfrute \"residencial recreativo\". Alega\r\nque sin la aprobación del ICT y posterior inscripción\r\ndel Contrato de Concesión ante el Registro de Concesiones del Registro\r\nNacional, le está vedado levantar una construcción en la parcela solicitada. 2) Señala que la Procuraduría General\r\nde la República, en el dictamen C-319-2008 del 12 de setiembre\r\ndel 2008, concluyó que la aprobación del contrato de concesión por parte del ICT, es necesaria para que el mismo surta los efectos\r\nlegales correspondientes, incluyendo el cobro del canon, que empezaría a\r\ncobrarse hasta que exista esa certeza jurídica de aprobación, previa\r\ncomunicación al interesado. Sostiene que el cobro del canon que aquí se impugna\r\nse basa en una \"lectura literal y aislada\" del numeral 44\r\ndel Reglamento a la Ley 6043 por parte de la Asesoría Legal de\r\nla Municipalidad de Parrita, lectura que lleva a una interpretación errada y\r\naislada de lo que se quiso legislar. 3) Estima que el citado\r\nnumeral contraviene el espíritu de la Ley 6043, ya que al particular le está\r\nvedado hacer uso de los bienes de dominio público sin la respectiva concesión\r\notorgada conforme al ordenamiento jurídico; y en la especie, la concesión se\r\nconsiderará otorgada hasta tanto la misma sea aprobada por el ICT e inscrita ante el Registro de Concesiones. Tan es así,\r\nque en la cláusula sexta del Adendum al contrato de\r\nconcesión suscrito el 13 de Diciembre de 2013, se establece: \"El plazo de la\r\npresente concesión es de VEINTE años contados a partir de la fecha de\r\naprobación del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, de conformidad con el Dictamen\r\n319-2008 de la\r\n Procuraduría General de la República... \". En consecuencia,\r\nestima que si el plazo de la concesión empieza a correr a partir de la\r\naprobación del Contrato de Concesión por parte del ICT,\r\nel cobro del canon que pretende hacer la Municipalidad de Parrita, es ilegal,\r\nya que exigir el pago del canon a partir de la firma del contrato de concesión,\r\nsería legitimar un enriquecimiento ilícito por parte de aquella. Por su parte, la representante de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE PARRITA\r\nmanifiesta que: a) Alega que el artículo 44\r\ndel Reglamento a la Ley 6043, no indica que la Municipalidad deberá esperar la\r\naprobación o el refrendo del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, para proceder\r\na realizar el cobro correspondiente al canon, pues por el contrario, establece\r\nque: \"una\r\nvez aprobada la concesión por el Concejo\" el interesado deberá depositar el importe correspondiente\r\na la primera anualidad del canon. b) Sostiene que conforme al\r\nprincipio de legalidad, la Municipalidad no podría atribuirse potestades que no\r\nle corresponden suspendiendo o anulando el cobro del canon que la Ley autoriza\r\nal haber un Contrato vigente, ya que con ese actuar estaría contraviniendo lo\r\nindicado en el numeral 44 del reglamento a la Ley 6043. c) En\r\nconsecuencia, manifiesta que se opone a la demanda presentada, donde se alega\r\nla improcedencia con respecto al cobro del CANON sobre una parcela situada en\r\nPlaya Esterillas, Distrito Único, Cantón Parrita, Provincia de Puntarenas , con\r\nuna constante de 1.089,4 7 m2,\r\ncon vista en el plano catastrado P- 438163-81, para un uso Residencial\r\nRecreativo, autorizada según Acuerdo municipal número 05, Artículo tercero,\r\nPunto número 02, Asunto número 03, de la sesión ordinaria número 2157-2008,\r\ncelebrada el veinticinco de agosto del 2008, ya que a su juicio, se ha\r\nobservado lo dispuesto en la Ley 6043 y su reglamento. Por último, la representante del ESTADO, indica\r\nque: i) En la demanda interpuesta se\r\npretende la declaratoria de ilegalidad del artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley de\r\nZona Marítimo Terrestre porque, a criterio de la parte actora, el mismo resulta\r\ncontrario a lo dispuesto en los numerales 42 de la Ley de Zona Marítimo\r\nTerrestre y 145.4 de la\r\n Ley General de Administración Pública, no obstante, en el\r\ndesarrollo del apartado de la demanda denominado \"Derecho\" se indica\r\nclaramente que lo que se alega como contrario a derecho es la interpretación\r\nque ha realizado la Municipalidad de Parrita del mismo, la cual la parte actora\r\nconsidera errada, literal y aislada del resto del ordenamiento jurídico. ii) Sostiene que\r\nel artículo 145 inciso 4 de la Ley General de\r\nAdministración Pública establece que cuando un acto requiera aprobación de otro\r\nórgano, la eficacia de éste estará supeditada a la citada aprobación, por lo\r\nque, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el numeral 42 de la Ley 6043, la\r\nconcesión de marras surtiría efectos hasta que haya sido aprobada por el ICT y no hasta que sea inscrita en el Registro, como indica\r\nla parte actora. iii) Considera que en\r\ncuanto al momento a partir del cual se debe realizar el cobro del canon en las\r\nconcesiones de zona marítimo terrestre y la correcta interpretación que debe\r\ndársele al artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley N° 6043, la Procuraduría General de la República, ha emitido\r\nuna serie de pronunciamientos que datan desde el 2000, creando una consistente\r\nlínea de criterio al respecto. En este sentido, indica que recientemente, se\r\nemitió el dictamen C-279-2015, en el que se analiza la jurisprudencia\r\nadministrativa y judicial, así como la normativa relativa al tema. iv) Por ende,\r\nconsidera que el Estado ha sostenido que la norma cuya legalidad se cuestiona, debe\r\ninterpretarse de forma armónica con el resto del ordenamiento jurídico, a\r\nla luz de lo dispuesto en los numerales 142 de la Ley N° 6043 y 145.4 de la Ley General de Administración Pública, por lo\r\nque realizando la interpretación correcta del mismo éste no resulta ilegal sino\r\nconforme a derecho, por lo que la demanda interpuesta en contra del Estado\r\nresulta improcedente.- \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nIIIo.-\r\nSOBRE LA INTERPRETACIÓN\r\n CONFORME DEL ARTÍCULO 44 DE REGLAMENTO A LA LEY DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO\r\nTERRESTRE. En primera instancia, debe\r\npartirse de que el artículo 42 de la Ley 6043 establece –en lo que interesa-\r\nque las concesiones en las áreas turísticas requieren la aprobación del\r\nInstituto Costarricense de Turismo, y que si la concesión se refiere a una\r\nisla o islote marítimos, o parte de las mismas, será necesaria la aprobación de\r\nla Asamblea\r\n Legislativa. Es menester resaltar, que dicha norma fue\r\nderogada parcialmente, únicamente en cuanto se refiere, a que al\r\nInstituto de Tierras o Colonización (posteriormente denominado Instituto de\r\nDesarrollo Agrario), le correspondía la aprobación de las concesiones otorgadas\r\nen las demás áreas de la zona marítimo terrestre, toda vez que mediante\r\nartículo 82 de la Ley 9036 (vigente desde el 30 de noviembre del 2012), se\r\ndispuso:\r\n“Deróguense las obligaciones contempladas en la Ley Nº 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre,\r\nde 2 de marzo de 1977, en relación con el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario”\r\n(el resaltado no es del original). En\r\neste punto, cabe recordar que de acuerdo al numeral 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública,\r\nlos efectos de los actos administrativos podrán estar sujetos a requisitos de\r\neficacia, fijados por el mismo acto o por el ordenamiento jurídico y, que esos\r\nrequisitos de eficacia producirán un efecto retroactivo a la fecha del acto\r\nadministrativo, salvo disposición expresa en contrario. Ahora bien, cuando la\r\nconducta formal administrativa requiera aprobación de otro ente u órgano,\r\nmientras ésta no se haya dado, aquella no será eficaz, ni podrá comunicarse,\r\nimpugnarse ni ejecutarse (artículos 140 y 141 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública).\r\nEn consecuencia, resulta contrario a los principios de jerarquía de las fuentes\r\ny de legalidad, que en el numeral 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, se\r\nestablezca –con excepción del supuesto de concesiones dadas en áreas de\r\nla zona marítimo terrestre que no sean de aptitud turística, ni que constituyan\r\nislas o islotes, a consecuencia de la reforma legal vigente desde el 30 de\r\nnoviembre del 2012- que el cobro\r\ndel canon se realice inmediatamente después de que el Concejo Municipal acuerde\r\notorgar la concesión y de que se firme el contrato respectivo entre el ente\r\nmunicipal y el concesionario, ello por cuanto, dichos actos no son\r\neficaces hasta tanto el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo o la Asamblea Legislativa\r\naprueben la concesión otorgada y se comunique lo correspondiente al interesado\r\n(artículo 140 de la Ley\r\n General de la Administración Pública).\r\nAsimismo, la protocolización de piezas en que conste el acuerdo municipal en\r\nque se otorga la concesión, el acto de aprobación (cuando sea necesaria) y la transcripción literal del contrato (artículo 84 del Reglamento\r\na la Ley 6043), debe ser inscrita en el Registro General de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre\r\n–independientemente que estén sujetos o no a aprobación-, ya que de acuerdo al\r\npárrafo último del numeral 30 de la Ley 6043, “…Esos títulos no perjudicarán a\r\nterceros sino desde la fecha de su recibo o presentación en dicho Registro…”. Ahora bien, dado que de manera sobrevenida se\r\nmodificó de manera parcial el artículo 42 de la Ley de la 6043 en los términos\r\nantes indicados, considera este Tribunal que no resulta ilegal el\r\nartículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, en el tanto se interprete conforme\r\na lo dispuesto en los numerales 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública,\r\nlo cual implica, que el canon podrá ser cobrado por el ente municipal a\r\npartir de que se apruebe la concesión por el órgano o el ente competente, y se\r\ncomunique al interesado en los términos del artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En los supuestos en que no se\r\nrequiera aprobación (concesiones en zonas no declaradas como\r\nturísticas, o sobre islas o islotes), el canon será eficaz y por ende, podrá\r\nser cobrado una vez que el Concejo Municipal acuerde otorgar la concesión y se\r\nproceda a firmar el contrato entre el Alcalde y el concesionario, con\r\nfundamento en la reforma parcial al artículo 42 de la Ley 6043 dispuesta en el\r\nnumeral 82 de la Ley 9036, vigente desde el 30 de noviembre del 2012. Sin\r\nperjuicio de que la inscripción en el Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre\r\n–independientemente\r\nque la concesión esté sujeta o no a aprobación-, sólo es para efectos de terceros (artículo 30 último\r\npárrafo del artículo 30 de la Ley 6043).\r\nUna vez que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza, será publicada íntegramente en\r\nel diario oficial La Gaceta, con cargo al Estado, pues fue el Poder\r\nEjecutivo el que dictó la norma reglamentaria cuya interpretación conforme se\r\ndispone en esta sentencia (artículo 130 inciso 3 del Código Procesal\r\nContencioso Administrativo). \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nIVo.- EN\r\nCUANTO A LA\r\n NULIDAD ABSOLUTA DE LOS REQUERIMIENTOS DE COBRO REALIZADOS\r\nPOR LA\r\n MUNICIPALIDAD DEMANDADA PARA QUE EL ACTOR PAGUE EL CANON DE\r\nUNA CONCESIÓN NO APROBADA. Conforme\r\na lo analizado en el considerando anterior, estima este Tribunal que si bien es\r\ncierto, el numeral 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 establece que “…Una vez aprobada\r\nla concesión por el Concejo Municipal se le comunicará al interesado, y se\r\nle fijará un término de 30 días hábiles para firmar el contrato y depositar\r\nel importe correspondiente a la primer anualidad del canon a favor de la\r\nmunicipalidad respectiva…” (el resaltado no es del original); también lo es, que contrario a lo que afirma la\r\nrepresentante de la Municipalidad demandada, aplicar esa disposición\r\nreglamentaria al caso concreto, de manera literal aislada y discordante con los\r\nartículos 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública,\r\nimplica una violación manifiesta a los principios de legalidad y de jerarquía de\r\nlas fuentes del ordenamiento jurídico (numerales 6 y 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública).\r\nConsidera este Tribunal que dicha circunstancia, resulta paradójica con el\r\ncontenido de las siguientes conductas formales emanadas del propio ente municipal,\r\na saber: A) Tanto en el contrato original de concesión (cláusula décima\r\nquinta), como en el adendum al mismo (cláusula sexta)\r\nsuscritos por el Alcalde Municipal de Parrita y el actor, se establece: i)\r\nCláusula Décima Quinta: \"...Esta concesión será válida y\r\nsurtirá todos los efectos a partir de la inscripción de la misma en el\r\nRegistro General de Concesiones...\" (folios 40 a 36 del expediente\r\nadministrativo; el resaltado no es del original). Claro está, sin perjuicio de que la inscripción en el Registro\r\nNacional de Concesiones, es para efectos de terceros y no como allí se indica; ii) Cláusula\r\nsexta: \"...El plazo de la\r\npresente concesión es de VEINTE años contados a partir de la fecha de\r\naprobación por parte del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo...\" (folios 108\r\n a 101 del expediente administrativo; el resaltado no es\r\ndel original). B) Aunado a lo anterior,\r\nse tiene por acreditado que el demandante no ha podido usufructuar conforme\r\nal plan regulador costero, la parcela 388 situada en Playa Esterillos, que\r\nle fue dada en concesión por el Concejo Municipal de Parrita para uso\r\nresidencial recreativo, y que no fue aprobada por el Instituto Costarricense de\r\nTurismo (folios\r\n31 a 29, 155 a 153, 148 a 127 del expediente\r\nadministrativo), pues la abogada del Departamento\r\nLegal de la\r\n Zona Marítimo Terrestre de la Municipalidad de Parrita, al\r\ncontestar la consulta remitida por el actor mediante correo electrónico el 29\r\nde mayo el 2015, respecto a la posibilidad de que le otorgaran un permiso de\r\nconstrucción, si eventualmente cancelaba la totalidad de la suma cobrada por\r\nconcepto de canon de concesión no aprobada por el Instituto Costarricense de\r\nTurismo (folios\r\n164 a\r\n162 del expediente administrativo; 18\r\n a 20 del expediente judicial), claramente indicó “…Respecto al otorgamiento de los\r\npermisos de construcción son otorgados por parte del departamento de\r\nDesarrollo Urbano de la Municipalidad de Parrita, una vez que la concesión\r\nse encuentre inscrita en el Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre\r\ndel Registro Nacional, lo cual es posterior a la aprobación o refrendo que debe\r\nrealizar el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo…” (folios\r\n164 a\r\n162 del expediente administrativo; 18\r\n a 20 del expediente judicial; el resaltado no es del\r\noriginal). C) Asimismo, cabe destacar que con vista en la certificación\r\nque consta a folio 160 del expediente administrativo, se desprende que el\r\nexpediente número 2478-2003 en que se tramitó la solicitud de concesión\r\nplanteada por el actor, “…se encuentra debidamente archivado en el Departamento de\r\nZona Marítimo Terrestre…”, razón por la\r\ncual, resulta evidente y manifiestamente contrario a derecho, que la\r\nMunicipalidad de Parrita pretenda cobrar al demandante el monto anual por\r\nconcepto de canon desde el año 2009 hasta el 2016, que ascendía a la suma de\r\n¢9.848.640,00 (nueve millones ochocientos cuarenta y ocho mil seiscientos\r\ncuarenta colones) (imágenes 164 a\r\n166 del expediente virtual a la fecha de dictado de esta sentencia; folios 168 a 165, 119 a 117 del expediente\r\nadministrativo), a pesar de que desde el\r\n23 de mayo del 2014, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo no aprobó la\r\nconcesión otorgada al actor por parte del Concejo Municipal de Parrita y de que\r\nel expediente se encuentra archivado a consecuencia de esa denegatoria, según\r\ncertificó la Secretaria del Concejo Municipal el 2 de julio del 2014, y de que\r\nel actor no ha podido usufructuar la concesión. Por último, este Tribunal estima que la\r\nMunicipalidad también ha incurrido en una violación a lo dispuesto en el\r\nnumeral 10 de la Ley\r\n General de la Administración Pública,\r\ntoda vez que se limitó a aplicar de manera literal, aislada e ilegal lo\r\ndispuesto en el artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 en perjuicio del accionante, a pesar de que tenía el deber de\r\ninterpretarla de la forma que mejor garantizara la realización del fin público\r\na que se dirige, dentro del respeto debido a los derechos e intereses del\r\nparticular, tomando en cuenta para tal efecto, las otras normas conexas y la\r\nnaturaleza y valor de la conducta y los hechos a que se refiere. Dicha\r\nomisión ilegítima no sólo ha provocado la interposición de este proceso de\r\nconocimiento, sino además, que este Tribunal deba interpretar el artículo 44\r\ndel Reglamento a Ley 6043 en los términos expuestos en el considerando III de esta sentencia, a fin de no declarar la nulidad\r\nparcial de esa norma reglamentaria. En consecuencia y por todo lo\r\nexpuesto, este Tribunal declara la nulidad absoluta del requerimiento de cobro\r\nemitido el 26 de noviembre del 2013. por el Departamento de Rentas y Cobranzas\r\nde la Municipalidad de Parrita, y por conexidad,\r\ndel oficio del 18 de setiembre del 2015 de la Sección\r\nde Arriendo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre de la Municipalidad de\r\nParrita, y del acuerdo número 02, artículo tercero, asunto Nº1\r\nde la sesión ordinaria 005-2014 del 27 de enero del 2014, adoptado por el\r\nConcejo Municipal de Parrita. Ello implica, que la Municipalidad de Parrita\r\npodrá cobrar el canon al demandante, hasta que el Instituto Costarricense de\r\nTurismo, apruebe la concesión, siempre y cuando se subsanen los defectos de\r\nfondo que motivaron la no aprobación de la misma, a saber: presunta\r\nubicación parcial de la parcela en terrenos de Patrimonio Natural del Estado;\r\nindeterminación del sitio exacto en que se ubica la parcela objeto de concesión\r\nporque no coinciden los mojones; supuesta invasión de una porción del área\r\npública de una de las cercas (folios 148 a 127, 155 a 153 del expediente\r\nadministrativo). \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nVo.-\r\nSOBRE LOS PRESUPUESTOS Y EXCEPCIONES DE FONDO. Este Tribunal llega a la conclusión de que el actor\r\ncuenta con suficiente legitimación activa para participar en este\r\nproceso conforme al artículo 10 inciso a) del Código Procesal Contencioso\r\nAdministrativo, ya que la Municipalidad de Parrita pretende cobrarle el canon\r\ndel período comprendido entre el año 2009 al 2016, con base en una aplicación\r\nliteral, aislada e ilegal del artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, a pesar de que el\r\nInstituto Costarricense de Turismo no aprobó la concesión que le fue otorgada\r\npor el Concejo Municipal de Parrita. Además, la acción se dirige\r\ncorrectamente contra el Estado y la Municipalidad de Parrita, tal y como lo\r\ndispone el inciso 1) del numeral 12 del citado Código, dado que son los autores\r\nde la conducta objeto del proceso, específicamente, del dictado del Reglamento\r\na la Ley 6043 (Estado) y de los requerimientos de cobro en perjuicio del actor\r\npor concepto de canon del período comprendido entre los años 2009 a 2016 (Municipalidad\r\nde Parita). Por su parte, el interés se mantiene actual, en el tanto las\r\nconductas cuestionadas siguen surtiendo efectos en la esfera jurídica del\r\ndemandante y requiere de una resolución jurisdiccional que la resuelva. Finalmente,\r\nencuentra este órgano colegiado que por todo lo expuesto en los considerandos III y IV de esta sentencia, se rechaza la excepción de falta\r\nde derecho planteada por la representante del Estado y se declara con\r\nlugar la demanda interpuesta por Jorge Alberto Jiménez Cordero contra la\r\nMunicipalidad de Parrita y el Estado, en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose\r\npor denegada en lo que no se indique de manera expresa: 1) Se declara\r\nque no resulta ilegal lo dispuesto en el numeral 44 del Reglamento a la Ley\r\n6043, en el tanto se interprete conforme a lo dispuesto en los numerales 42\r\nde la Ley 6043 y 145 de la\r\n Ley General de la Administración Pública,\r\nlo cual implica, que el canon podrá ser cobrado por el ente municipal a\r\npartir de que se apruebe la concesión por el órgano o el ente competente, y se\r\ncomunique al interesado en los términos del artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En consecuencia, para los\r\nsupuestos en que no se requiera aprobación (concesiones en zonas\r\ndeclaradas como no turísticas, o sobre islas o islotes), el canon será eficaz y\r\npor ende, podrá ser cobrado una vez que el Concejo Municipal acuerde otorgar la\r\nconcesión y se proceda a firmar el contrato entre el Alcalde y el\r\nconcesionario, con fundamento en la reforma parcial al artículo 42 de la Ley\r\n6043 dispuesta en el numeral 82 de la Ley 9036, vigente desde el 30 de\r\nnoviembre del 2012. A\r\npartir de que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza, deberá ser publicada\r\níntegramente en el diario oficial La Gaceta, con cargo al Estado, pues fue\r\nel Poder Ejecutivo el que dictó la norma reglamentaria cuya interpretación\r\nconforme se dispone en esta sentencia (artículo 130 inciso 3 del Código\r\nProcesal Contencioso Administrativo).\r\n2) Se declara la nulidad absoluta del\r\nrequerimiento de cobro emitido el 26 de noviembre del 2013, por el Departamento\r\nde Rentas y Cobranzas de la Municipalidad de Parrita, y por conexidad, del oficio del 18 de setiembre\r\ndel 2015 de la Sección de Arriendo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre\r\nde la Municipalidad de Parrita, y del acuerdo número 02, artículo tercero,\r\nasunto Nº 01 de la sesión ordinaria 005-2014 del 27 de enero del 2014, adoptado\r\npor el Concejo Municipal de Parrita. 3) Se ordena a la Municipalidad de\r\nParrita, no cobrar el canon al demandante, hasta que el Instituto Costarricense\r\nde Turismo, apruebe la concesión, siempre y cuando se subsanen los defectos\r\nde fondo que motivaron la no aprobación de la misma.-“", "body_en_text": "II.- SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS. The PLAINTIFF maintains: 1) It alleges that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), the collection of the fee (canon) sought by the Municipality of Parrita is improper, since the Concession (Concesión) over the requested parcel was not approved by the ICT, by virtue of it being located in a tourist zone, according to the Esterillos Beach Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador de Playa Esterillos). It indicates that approval by the ICT constitutes a sine qua non requirement for the administrated party to be able to make use and enjoyment of the property requested in concession, including the erection of constructions necessary for \"residential recreational\" enjoyment. It alleges that without the ICT's approval and subsequent registration of the Concession Contract (Contrato de Concesión) before the Concessions Registry (Registro de Concesiones) of the National Registry (Registro Nacional), it is forbidden to erect a construction on the requested parcel. 2) It points out that the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República), in opinion C-319-2008 of September 12, 2008, concluded that the approval of the concession contract by the ICT is necessary for it to have the corresponding legal effects, including the collection of the fee, which would begin to be collected only once that legal certainty of approval exists, following notification to the interested party. It maintains that the collection of the fee challenged here is based on a \"literal and isolated reading\" of numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 (Reglamento a la Ley 6043) by the Legal Advisory Office (Asesoría Legal) of the Municipality of Parrita, a reading that leads to an erroneous and isolated interpretation of what was intended to be legislated.\n\nIII.- REGARDING THE CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION (INTERPRETACIÓN CONFORME) OF ARTICLE 44 OF THE REGULATION TO THE MARITIME TERRESTRIAL ZONE LAW (LEY DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE). In the first instance, it must be taken as a starting point that Article 42 of Law 6043 establishes—in what is relevant—that concessions in tourist areas require the approval of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo), and that if the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa) will be necessary. It is necessary to highlight that said norm was partially repealed, solely insofar as it refers to the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras o Colonización, later called the Institute of Agrarian Development, Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) being responsible for the approval of concessions granted in the other areas of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), given that by means of Article 82 of Law 9036 (in force since November 30, 2012), it was provided: \"The obligations contemplated in Law Nº 6043, Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, of March 2, 1977, in relation to the Institute of Agrarian Development are hereby repealed\" (highlighting is not from the original). At this point, it is worth recalling that according to numeral 145 of the General Public Administration Law, the effects of administrative acts may be subject to efficacy requirements (requisitos de eficacia), established by the same act or by the legal system, and that those efficacy requirements will produce retroactive effect to the date of the administrative act, unless expressly provided otherwise. Now, when the formal administrative conduct requires the approval of another entity or body, as long as this has not been granted, that conduct will not be effective, nor can it be communicated, challenged, or executed (Articles 140 and 141 of the General Public Administration Law). Consequently, it is contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources and legality, that numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 establishes—with the exception of the case of concessions granted in areas of the maritime terrestrial zone that are neither of tourist suitability, nor constitute islands or islets, as a consequence of the legal reform in force since November 30, 2012—that the collection of the fee be carried out immediately after the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) agrees to grant the concession and after the respective contract is signed between the municipal entity and the concessionaire (concesionario), this because those acts are not effective until the Costa Rican Tourism Institute or the Legislative Assembly approves the granted concession and the corresponding notification is made to the interested party (Article 140 of the General Public Administration Law). Likewise, the protocolization of documents recording the municipal agreement granting the concession, the act of approval (when necessary), and the literal transcription of the contract (Article 84 of the Regulation to Law 6043), must be registered in the General Registry of Concessions of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Registro General de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre)—regardless of whether they are subject to approval or not—since according to the last paragraph of numeral 30 of Law 6043, \"...Those titles shall not prejudice third parties except from the date of their receipt or presentation in said Registry...\". Now, given that Article 42 of Law 6043 was subsequently partially modified in the terms previously indicated, this Tribunal considers that Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 is not illegal, insofar as it is interpreted in accordance (interprete conforme) with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Law, which implies that the fee may be collected by the municipal entity as of the time the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and the interested party is notified under the terms of Article 140 of the General Public Administration Law. In cases where approval is not required (concessions in zones not declared as tourist zones, or over islands or islets), the fee will be effective and, therefore, may be collected once the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the contract between the Mayor (Alcalde) and the concessionaire is signed, based on the partial reform to Article 42 of Law 6043 established in numeral 82 of Law 9036, in force since November 30, 2012. Without prejudice to the fact that registration in the National Registry of Concessions of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre)—regardless of whether the concession is subject to approval or not—is only for the purposes of third parties (Article 30, last paragraph of Article 30 of Law 6043). Once this judgment becomes final, it shall be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State, since it was the Executive Branch (Poder Ejecutivo) that issued the regulatory norm whose consistent interpretation (interpretación conforme) is ordered in this judgment (Article 130, subsection 3 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)).\n\nIV.- REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF THE COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FEE FOR AN UNAPPROVED CONCESSION. According to what was analyzed in the preceding recital, this Tribunal considers that while it is true that numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 establishes that \"...Once the concession is approved by the Municipal Council, the interested party will be notified, and a term of 30 business days will be set to sign the contract and deposit the amount corresponding to the first annuity of the fee in favor of the respective municipality...\" (highlighting is not from the original); it is also true that, contrary to what the representative of the defendant Municipality affirms, applying that regulatory provision to the specific case, in a literal, isolated manner, and discordantly with Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Law, implies a manifest violation of the principles of legality and hierarchy of sources of the legal system (numerals 6 and 11 of the General Public Administration Law). This Tribunal considers that said circumstance is paradoxical with the content of the following formal conducts emanating from the municipal entity itself, namely: A) Both in the original concession contract (clause fifteen) and in the addendum thereto (clause six) signed by the Municipal Mayor of Parrita and the plaintiff, it is established: i) Clause Fifteen: \"...This concession shall be valid and shall have all effects as of its registration in the General Registry of Concessions...\" (folios 40 to 36 of the administrative file; highlighting is not from the original). Clearly, without prejudice to the fact that registration in the National Registry of Concessions is for the purposes of third parties and not as indicated therein; ii) Clause six: \"...The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted from the date of approval by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute...\" (folios 108 to 101 of the administrative file; highlighting is not from the original). B) In addition to the above, it is established as proven that the plaintiff has not been able to usufruct, in accordance with the coastal regulatory plan (plan regulador costero), parcel 388 situated in Esterillos Beach, which was granted to him in concession by the Municipal Council of Parrita for residential recreational use, and which was not approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (folios 31 to 29, 155 to 153, 148 to 127 of the administrative file), since the attorney of the Legal Department of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone of the Municipality of Parrita, when responding to the query sent by the plaintiff via email on May 29, 2015, regarding the possibility of granting him a construction permit, if he eventually paid the full amount charged for the concession fee not approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file), clearly indicated \"...Regarding the granting of construction permits, they are granted by the Urban Development department of the Municipality of Parrita, once the concession is registered in the National Registry of Concessions of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone of the National Registry, which occurs after the approval or endorsement that must be carried out by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute...\" (folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file; highlighting is not from the original). C) Likewise, it is worth noting that in view of the certification appearing on folio 160 of the administrative file, it is evident that file number 2478-2003, in which the concession application filed by the plaintiff was processed, \"...is duly archived in the Department of Maritime Terrestrial Zone...\", for which reason, it is evident and manifestly contrary to law, that the Municipality of Parrita seeks to collect from the plaintiff the annual amount for the fee from the year 2009 to 2016, which amounted to the sum of ₡9,848,640.00 (nine million eight hundred forty-eight thousand six hundred forty colones) (images 164 to 166 of the virtual file on the date this judgment is rendered; folios 168 to 165, 119 to 117 of the administrative file), despite the fact that since May 23, 2014, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute did not approve the concession granted to the plaintiff by the Municipal Council of Parrita and that the file is archived as a consequence of that denial, as certified by the Secretary of the Municipal Council on July 2, 2014, and that the plaintiff has not been able to usufruct the concession. Finally, this Tribunal considers that the Municipality has also incurred a violation of the provisions of numeral 10 of the General Public Administration Law, since it limited itself to applying, in a literal, isolated, and illegal manner, the provisions of Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 to the detriment of the plaintiff, despite having the duty to interpret it in the manner that best guaranteed the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual, taking into account for such effect, the other related norms and the nature and value of the conduct and the facts to which it refers. Said illegitimate omission has not only caused the filing of this declaratory proceeding, but also that this Tribunal must interpret Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 in the terms set forth in recital III of this judgment, in order not to declare the partial nullity of that regulatory norm. Consequently, and for all the foregoing, this Tribunal declares the absolute nullity of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Department of Revenues and Collections (Departamento de Rentas y Cobranzas) of the Municipality of Parrita, and by connection, of official communication of September 18, 2015, from the Leasing Section (Sección de Arriendo) of the Department of Maritime Terrestrial Zone of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter Nº 1 of the regular session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita. This implies that the Municipality of Parrita may collect the fee from the plaintiff, only when the Costa Rican Tourism Institute approves the concession, provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are corrected, namely: alleged partial location of the parcel on lands of State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado); indeterminacy of the exact site where the parcel subject to the concession is located because the boundary markers do not coincide; supposed invasion of a portion of the public area by one of the fences (folios 148 to 127, 155 to 153 of the administrative file).\n\nV.- REGARDING THE PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES AND SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES. This Tribunal reaches the conclusion that the plaintiff has sufficient active standing (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, since the Municipality of Parrita intends to charge him the fee for the period from 2009 to 2016, based on a literal, isolated, and illegal application of Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043, despite the fact that the Costa Rican Tourism Institute did not approve the concession that was granted to him by the Municipal Council of Parrita. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the State and the Municipality of Parrita, as provided in subsection 1) of numeral 12 of said Code, given that they are the authors of the conduct subject to the proceeding, specifically, of the issuance of the Regulation to Law 6043 (State) and of the collection requirements to the detriment of the plaintiff for the fee for the period from 2009 to 2016 (Municipality of Parrita). For its part, the interest remains current, insofar as the questioned conducts continue to have effects on the plaintiff's legal sphere and require a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds that, for all the reasons set forth in recitals III and IV of this judgment, the exception of lack of right (falta de derecho) raised by the representative of the State is rejected, and the complaint filed by Jorge Alberto Jiménez Cordero against the Municipality of Parrita and the State is granted, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in whatever is not expressly indicated: 1) It is declared that the provisions of numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 are not illegal, insofar as they are interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Law, which implies that the fee may be collected by the municipal entity as of the time the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and the interested party is notified under the terms of Article 140 of the General Public Administration Law. Consequently, for cases in which approval is not required (concessions in zones declared as non-tourist, or over islands or islets), the fee will be effective and, therefore, may be collected once the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the contract between the Mayor and the concessionaire is signed, based on the partial reform to Article 42 of Law 6043 established in numeral 82 of Law 9036, in force since November 30, 2012. As of the time this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State, since it was the Executive Branch that issued the regulatory norm whose consistent interpretation is ordered in this judgment (Article 130, subsection 3 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code). 2) The absolute nullity is declared of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Department of Revenues and Collections of the Municipality of Parrita, and by connection, of official communication of September 18, 2015, from the Leasing Section of the Department of Maritime Terrestrial Zone of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter Nº 01 of the regular session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita. 3) The Municipality of Parrita is ordered not to charge the fee to the plaintiff, until the Costa Rican Tourism Institute approves the concession, provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are corrected.-\n\n**3)** It considers that the cited numeral contravenes the spirit of Law 6043, since the individual is prohibited from using public domain assets without the respective concession granted in accordance with the legal system; and in this case, the concession shall be considered granted only once it is approved by the ICT and registered with the Concessions Registry. Such is the case, that clause six of the Addendum to the concession contract signed on December 13, 2013, establishes: *“The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted from the date of approval by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, in accordance with Dictamen 319-2008 of the Procuraduría General de la República...”.* Consequently, it considers that if the concession term begins to run from the approval of the Concession Contract by the ICT, the collection of the canon (canon) that the Municipalidad de Parrita intends to make is illegal, since demanding payment of the canon from the signing of the concession contract would legitimize unjust enrichment on its part. **For her part, the representative of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE PARRITA** states that: **a)** She alleges that Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 does not indicate that the Municipality must wait for the approval or endorsement of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo to proceed with the corresponding collection of the canon, since on the contrary, it establishes that: *“once the concession is approved by the Concejo”* the interested party must deposit the amount corresponding to the first annual installment of the canon. **b)** She maintains that in accordance with the principle of legality, the Municipality could not assume powers that do not correspond to it by suspending or annulling the collection of the canon that the Law authorizes when there is a current Contract, since by doing so it would be contravening what is indicated in numeral 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043. **c)** Consequently, she states that she opposes the lawsuit filed, which alleges the impropriety of the collection of the CANON on a parcel located in Playa Esterillos, Distrito Único, Cantón Parrita, Provincia de Puntarenas, with an area of 1,089.47 m2, as shown on cadastral map P-438163-81, for Residential Recreational use, authorized by municipal Acuerdo number 05, Artículo tercero, Punto number 02, Asunto number 03, of the ordinary session number 2157-2008, held on August twenty-fifth, 2008, since in her judgment, the provisions of Ley 6043 and its Reglamento have been observed. Finally, the **representative of the ESTADO** indicates that: **i)** In the lawsuit filed, a declaration of illegality of Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre is sought because, in the opinion of the plaintiff, it is contrary to the provisions of numerals 42 of the Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre and 145.4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública; however, in the development of the section of the lawsuit called “Derecho,” it is clearly indicated that what is alleged as contrary to law is the interpretation made by the Municipalidad de Parrita of the same, which the plaintiff considers erroneous, literal, and isolated from the rest of the legal system. **ii)** She maintains that Article 145, subsection 4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública establishes that when an act requires approval from another body, the effectiveness of said act shall be subject to the cited approval; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 42 of Law 6043, the concession in question would take effect only once it has been approved by the ICT and not until it is inscribed in the Registry, as the plaintiff indicates. **iii)** She considers that regarding the moment from which the collection of the canon in maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) concessions must be made and the correct interpretation that must be given to Article 44 of the Reglamento a Law N° 6043, the Procuraduría General de la República has issued a series of pronouncements dating back to 2000, creating a consistent line of criteria on the matter. In this regard, she indicates that recently, Dictamen C-279-2015 was issued, in which the administrative and judicial jurisprudence, as well as the regulations related to the topic, were analyzed. **iv)** Therefore, she considers that the Estado has maintained that the rule whose legality is questioned, *must be interpreted harmoniously with the rest of the legal system*, in light of the provisions of numerals 142 of Law N° 6043 and 145.4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública, *so that by performing the correct interpretation of the same, it is not illegal but rather in conformity with the law, so the lawsuit filed against the Estado is improper*.\n\n**IIIo.- ON THE CONFORMING INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 44 OF THE REGLAMENTO A LA LEY DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE.** In the first instance, it must be assumed that Article 42 of Law 6043 establishes –as relevant– that concessions in tourist areas **require the approval of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo**, and that if the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Asamblea Legislativa shall be necessary. It is necessary to highlight **that said rule was partially repealed**, *only with regard* to the fact that the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (later named Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) was responsible for the approval of concessions granted in other areas of the maritime-terrestrial zone, **since through Article 82 of Law 9036 (effective since November 30, 2012)**, it was provided: *“Repeal the obligations contemplated in Law Nº 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, of March 2, 1977, in relation to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario”* (highlighting not from the original). At this point, it should be recalled that according to numeral 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the effects of administrative acts may be subject to effectiveness requirements, set by the act itself or by the legal system, and that those effectiveness requirements will produce a retroactive effect to the date of the administrative act, unless expressly provided otherwise. Now then, when the formal administrative conduct **requires approval from another entity or body, as long as this has not been given, that conduct shall not be effective, nor may it be communicated, challenged, or executed** (Articles 140 and 141 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Consequently, it is contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources and legality, for numeral 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 to establish **–*with the exception of the case of concessions granted in areas of the maritime-terrestrial zone that are not of tourist suitability, nor that constitute islands or islets, as a result of the legal reform effective since November 30, 2012*–** that the collection of the canon be carried out immediately after the Concejo Municipal agrees to grant the concession and after the respective contract is signed between the municipal entity and the concessionaire, because **said acts are not effective until the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Asamblea Legislativa approve the granted concession, and the corresponding decision is communicated to the interested party** (Article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Likewise, the notarization (protocolización) of documents containing the municipal agreement granting the concession, the act of approval (when necessary), and the literal transcription of the contract (Article 84 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043), must be inscribed in the Registro General de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre –regardless of whether they are subject to approval or not–, since according to the last paragraph of numeral 30 of Law 6043, *“…These titles shall not prejudice third parties except from the date of their receipt or presentation in said Registry…”*. Now then, given that *the reform partially modifying Article 42 of Law 6043 occurred subsequently in the terms previously indicated*, this Tribunal considers **that it is not illegal** for Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043, **insofar as it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública**, *which implies that the canon may be collected by the municipal entity starting from when the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and communicated to the interested party in the terms of Article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. In cases where approval is not required* (concessions in zones not declared as tourist, or on islands or islets), the canon will be effective and therefore, may be collected once the Concejo Municipal agrees to grant the concession and proceeds to sign the contract between the Alcalde and the concessionaire, based on the partial reform to Article 42 of Law 6043 provided in numeral 82 of Law 9036, effective since November 30, 2012. Without prejudice to the fact that the inscription in the Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre **–*regardless of whether the concession is subject to approval or not*–**, is only for purposes regarding third parties *(Article 30, last paragraph of Article 30 of Law 6043)*. **Once this sentence becomes final, it shall be published in its entirety in the official newspaper La Gaceta, at the cost of the Estado,** since it was the Poder Ejecutivo that issued the regulatory rule whose conforming interpretation is provided in this sentence *(Article 130 subsection 3 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)*.\n\n**IVo.- REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF THE COLLECTION REQUESTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE CANON OF AN UNAPPROVED CONCESSION.** In accordance with what was analyzed in the preceding considering, this Tribunal considers that although it is true that numeral 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 establishes *“…Once the concession is approved by the Concejo Municipal, it shall be communicated to the interested party, and a term of 30 business days shall be set to sign the contract and deposit the amount corresponding to the first annual installment of the canon in favor of the respective municipality…”* (highlighting not from the original); it is also true that, contrary to what the representative of the defendant Municipality affirms, *applying* that regulatory provision to the specific case, in a literal, isolated, and discordant manner with Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, implies a manifest violation of the principles of legality and hierarchy of the sources of the legal system (numerals 6 and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). This Tribunal considers that this circumstance is paradoxical with the content of the following formal conducts emanating from the municipal entity itself, namely: **A)** Both in the original concession contract (clause fifteen), and in the addendum (addendum) to the same (clause six) signed by the Alcalde Municipal de Parrita and the plaintiff, it is established: **i)** **Clause Fifteen:** *\"...This concession shall be valid and shall take all effects starting from the inscription of the same in the Registro General de Concesiones...\"* (folios 40 to 36 of the administrative file; highlighting not from the original). Of course, without prejudice to the fact that the inscription in the Registro Nacional de Concesiones is for the purposes of third parties and not as indicated therein *;* **ii) Clause Six:** *\"...The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted starting from the date of approval by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo...\"* (folios 108 to 101 of the administrative file; highlighting not from the original). **B)** In addition to the above, it is established that **the plaintiff has not been able to enjoy (usufructuar)** parcel 388 located in Playa Esterillos, which was granted in concession by the Concejo Municipal de Parrita for recreational residential use, in accordance with the coastal regulatory plan (plan regulador costero), and which was not approved by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo *(folios 31 to 29, 155 to 153, 148 to 127 of the administrative file),* since the lawyer from the Legal Department of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the Municipalidad de Parrita, in responding to the query sent by the plaintiff via email on May 29, 2015, regarding the possibility of granting him a construction permit, if he eventually paid the entire sum collected for the canon of the concession not approved by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo *(folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file), clearly indicated “…Regarding the granting of construction permits, they are granted by the Urban Development Department of the Municipalidad de Parrita, once the concession is inscribed in the Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the Registro Nacional, which is subsequent to the approval or endorsement that must be carried out by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo…”* (folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file; highlighting not from the original). **C)** Likewise, it should be noted that in view of the certification appearing at folio 160 of the administrative file, it is evident that file number 2478-2003, in which the concession request filed by the plaintiff was processed, *“…is duly archived in the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre…”,* which is why *it is evident and manifestly contrary to law* that the Municipalidad de Parrita seeks to collect from the plaintiff the annual amount for the canon from 2009 to 2016, which amounted to the sum of ¢9,848,640.00 (nine million eight hundred forty-eight thousand six hundred forty colones) *(images 164 to 166 of the virtual file as of the date of issuance of this sentence; folios 168 to 165, 119 to 117 of the administrative file),* despite the fact that since May 23, 2014, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo did not approve the concession granted to the plaintiff by the Concejo Municipal de Parrita and that the file is archived as a result of that denial, as certified by the Secretary of the Concejo Municipal on July 2, 2014, and that the plaintiff has not been able to enjoy the concession. Finally, this Tribunal considers that **the Municipality has also incurred a violation of the provisions of numeral 10 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública,** *since it limited itself to applying the provisions of Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 in a literal, isolated, and illegal manner to the detriment of the claimant*, even though it had the duty to interpret it in the way that best guaranteed the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual, taking into account for that purpose the other related rules and the nature and value of the conduct and the facts to which it refers. **This illegitimate omission has not only caused the filing of this proceeding, but also, that this Tribunal must interpret Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 in the terms set forth in considering III of this sentence, in order not to declare the partial nullity of that regulatory rule**. *Consequently and for all the foregoing, this Tribunal declares the absolute nullity of the collection request issued on November 26, 2013, by the Department of Revenue and Collections of the Municipalidad de Parrita, and by connection, of the official letter of September 18, 2015, from the Leasing Section of the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the Municipalidad de Parrita, and of acuerdo number 02, article three, matter Nº1 of the ordinary session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Concejo Municipal de Parrita*. This implies that the Municipalidad de Parrita may collect the canon from the plaintiff only when the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo approves the concession, *provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are corrected*, namely: alleged partial location of the parcel on lands of Patrimonio Natural del Estado; indeterminacy of the exact site where the concession parcel is located because the boundary markers do not coincide; supposed invasion of a portion of the public area by one of the fences *(folios 148 to 127, 155 to 153 of the administrative file).*\n\n**Vo.- ON THE REQUIREMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES.** This Tribunal concludes that the plaintiff has sufficient **standing (legitimación activa)** to participate in this process in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since the Municipalidad de Parrita seeks to collect the canon for the period from 2009 to 2016, based on a literal, isolated, and illegal application of Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043, despite the fact that the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo did not approve the concession that was granted to him by the Concejo Municipal de Parrita. Furthermore, **the action is correctly directed against the Estado and the Municipalidad de Parrita,** as provided in subsection 1) of numeral 12 of the cited Código, given that they are the authors of the conduct at issue in the process, specifically, the issuance of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 (Estado) and the collection requests to the detriment of the plaintiff for the canon for the period from 2009 to 2016 (Municipalidad de Parita). For its part, **the interest remains current,** insofar as the questioned conducts continue to have effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and he requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds that for everything stated in considerings III and IV of this sentence, the **defense of lack of right** raised by the representative of the Estado is rejected **and the lawsuit is granted** filed by Jorge Alberto Jiménez Cordero against the Municipalidad de Parrita and the Estado, in the following terms, *understood as denied in what is not expressly indicated*: **1) It is declared that it is not illegal** what is provided in numeral 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043, **insofar as it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública**, *which implies that the canon may be collected by the municipal entity starting from when the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and communicated to the interested party in the terms of Article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Consequently, for cases where no approval is required* (concessions in zones declared as non-tourist, or on islands or islets), the canon will be effective and therefore, may be collected once the Concejo Municipal agrees to grant the concession and proceeds to sign the contract between the Alcalde and the concessionaire, based on the partial reform to Article 42 of Law 6043 provided in numeral 82 of Law 9036, effective since November 30, 2012.\n\nOnce this judgment becomes final, it shall be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State, since it was the Executive Branch that issued the regulatory provision whose interpretation is ordered in this judgment (article 130, subsection 3 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). 2) The absolute nullity is declared of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Department of Revenue and Collections of the Municipality of Parrita, and by connection (conexidad), of the official letter of September 18, 2015 from the Leasing Section of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter No. 01 of ordinary session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita. 3) The Municipality of Parrita is ordered not to charge the fee to the plaintiff, until the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo approves the concession, provided that the substantive defects that led to its non-approval are corrected.-\"\n\nIIo.- SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. The PLAINTIFF (parte ACTORA) maintains: 1) Alleges that in accordance with the provisions of articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the collection of the fee sought by the Municipality of Parrita is improper, since the Concession over the requested plot was not approved by the ICT, by virtue of being located in a tourist zone, according to the Playa Esterillos Regulatory Plan. Indicates that approval by the ICT constitutes a sine qua non requirement for the administered party to be able to use and enjoy the property requested in concession, including the erection of any constructions necessary for \"residential recreational\" enjoyment. Alleges that without the approval of the ICT and subsequent registration of the Concession Contract with the Concessions Registry of the National Registry, it is prohibited from erecting a construction on the requested plot. 2) Points out that the Procuraduría General de la República, in opinion C-319-2008 of September 12, 2008, concluded that the approval of the concession contract by the ICT is necessary for it to produce the corresponding legal effects, including the collection of the fee, which would only begin to be collected once there is that legal certainty of approval, after prior notification to the interested party. Argues that the collection of the fee challenged here is based on a \"literal and isolated reading\" of numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 by the Legal Advisory Office of the Municipality of Parrita, a reading that leads to an erroneous and isolated interpretation of what was intended to be legislated. 3) Considers that the cited numeral contravenes the spirit of Law 6043, since the individual is prohibited from using public domain property without the respective concession granted in accordance with the legal system; and in this case, the concession shall be considered granted only once it has been approved by the ICT and registered with the Concessions Registry. This is such that in the sixth clause of the Addendum to the concession contract signed on December 13, 2013, it is established: \"The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted from the date of approval by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, in accordance with Opinion 319-2008 of the Procuraduría General de la República... \". Consequently, it considers that if the term of the concession begins to run from the approval of the Concession Contract by the ICT, the collection of the fee sought by the Municipality of Parrita is illegal, since demanding payment of the fee from the signing of the concession contract would legitimize unjust enrichment on its part. For her part, the representative of the MUNICIPALITY OF PARRITA states that: a) Alleges that article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 does not indicate that the Municipality must wait for the approval or endorsement of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo to proceed with the collection corresponding to the fee, as on the contrary, it establishes that: \"once the concession is approved by the Council\" the interested party must deposit the amount corresponding to the first annuity of the fee. b) Argues that according to the principle of legality, the Municipality could not assume powers that do not correspond to it by suspending or annulling the collection of the fee that the Law authorizes when there is a valid Contract, since by acting in that manner it would be contravening what is indicated in numeral 44 of the regulation to Law 6043. c) Consequently, states that it opposes the filed lawsuit, which alleges the impropriety regarding the collection of the FEE on a plot located in Playa Esterillos, Single District, Canton of Parrita, Province of Puntarenas, with a constant of 1,089.47 m2, with a view in cadastral plan P- 438163-81, for a Residential Recreational use, authorized according to Municipal Agreement number 05, Article three, Point number 02, Matter number 03, of ordinary session number 2157-2008, held on August twenty-fifth, 2008, since in its judgment, the provisions of Law 6043 and its regulation have been observed. Lastly, the representative of the STATE, indicates that: i) In the filed lawsuit, a declaration of illegality of article 44 of the Regulation to the Zona Marítimo Terrestre Law is sought because, in the opinion of the plaintiff, it is contrary to the provisions of numerals 42 of the Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre and 145.4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública, however, in the development of the section of the lawsuit called \"Law\" it is clearly indicated that what is alleged as contrary to law is the interpretation made of it by the Municipality of Parrita, which the plaintiff considers erroneous, literal, and isolated from the rest of the legal system. ii) Argues that article 145, subsection 4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública establishes that when an act requires approval from another body, the effectiveness thereof shall be subject to said approval, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 42 of Law 6043, the concession in question would only take effect once it has been approved by the ICT and not once it is registered in the Registry, as the plaintiff indicates. iii) Considers that regarding the moment from which the fee must be collected in maritime terrestrial zone concessions and the correct interpretation that must be given to article 44 of the Regulation to Law No. 6043, the Procuraduría General de la República has issued a series of pronouncements dating from 2000, creating a consistent line of criteria in this regard. In this sense, indicates that recently, opinion C-279-2015 was issued, in which the administrative and judicial jurisprudence is analyzed, as well as the regulations relating to the subject. iv) Therefore, considers that the State has maintained that the provision whose legality is questioned must be interpreted harmoniously with the rest of the legal system, in light of the provisions of numerals 142 of Law No. 6043 and 145.4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública, so that by making the correct interpretation of it, it is not illegal but rather in accordance with the law, so the lawsuit filed against the State is improper.-\n\nIIIo.- ON THE CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 44 OF THE REGULATION TO THE LEY DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE. In the first instance, it must be taken as a starting point that article 42 of Law 6043 establishes –as relevant– that concessions in tourist areas require the approval of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and that if the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Legislative Assembly will be necessary. It is necessary to highlight that said provision was partially repealed, only as it refers to the fact that the Institute of Lands and Colonization (later named the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) was responsible for the approval of concessions granted in the other areas of the maritime terrestrial zone, since through article 82 of Law 9036 (in force since November 30, 2012), it was provided: “Repeal the obligations contemplated in Law No. 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, of March 2, 1977, in relation to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario” (highlighting not in original). At this point, it should be remembered that according to numeral 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the effects of administrative acts may be subject to effectiveness requirements, set by the same act or by the legal system, and that these effectiveness requirements will produce a retroactive effect to the date of the administrative act, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. Now, when the formal administrative conduct requires the approval of another entity or body, as long as such approval has not been granted, said conduct shall not be effective, nor may it be communicated, challenged, or executed (articles 140 and 141 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Consequently, it is contrary to the principles of the hierarchy of sources and legality, that in numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043, it is established –with the exception of the case of concessions granted in areas of the maritime terrestrial zone that are not of tourist suitability, nor that constitute islands or islets, as a consequence of the legal reform in force since November 30, 2012– that the collection of the fee be carried out immediately after the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and after the respective contract is signed between the municipal entity and the concessionaire, this is because said acts are not effective until the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Legislative Assembly approve the granted concession and the corresponding notification is communicated to the interested party (article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Likewise, the protocolization of documents recording the municipal agreement by which the concession is granted, the act of approval (when necessary), and the literal transcription of the contract (article 84 of the Regulation to Law 6043), must be registered in the General Registry of Concessions of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre –regardless of whether they are subject to approval or not– since according to the last paragraph of numeral 30 of Law 6043, “…These titles shall not affect third parties except from the date of their receipt or presentation in said Registry…”. Now, given that article 42 of Law 6043 was partially modified in a supervening manner in the terms indicated above, this Court considers that article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 is not illegal, to the extent that it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which implies that the fee may be collected by the municipal entity once the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and communicated to the interested party in the terms of article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. In cases where approval is not required (concessions in zones not declared as tourist, or on islands or islets), the fee will be effective and therefore, may be collected once the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the contract is signed between the Mayor and the concessionaire, based on the partial reform to article 42 of Law 6043 provided in numeral 82 of Law 9036, in force since November 30, 2012.\n\nWithout prejudice to the fact that registration in the National Concessions Registry of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (*Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre*)—regardless of whether the concession is subject to approval or not—is only for purposes of third parties (article 30, last paragraph of Article 30 of Law 6043). **Once this judgment becomes final, it shall be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the State's expense,** since it was the Executive Branch that enacted the regulatory provision whose conforming interpretation is ordered in this judgment *(article 130, subsection 3 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code)*.\n\n**IV.- REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF THE COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE CANON FOR AN UNAPPROVED CONCESSION.** Based on the analysis in the preceding considering clause, this Court finds that while it is true that numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 establishes that *“…*Underline*Once the concession is approved by the Municipal Council* it shall be communicated to the interested party, and a term of 30 business days shall be set for signing the contract and *depositing the amount corresponding to the first annuity of the canon in favor of the respective municipality*…”* (emphasis not in original); it is also true that, contrary to what the representative of the defendant Municipality claims, **applying** that regulatory provision to the specific case, in a literal, isolated manner and discordant with articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Law of Public Administration (*Ley General de la Administración Pública*), entails a manifest violation of the principles of legality and hierarchy of the sources of the legal order (numerals 6 and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration). This Court considers that this circumstance is paradoxical given the content of the following formal actions emanating from the municipal entity itself, namely: **A)** Both in the original concession contract (clause fifteenth), and in the addendum to it (clause sixth) signed by the Municipal Mayor of Parrita and the plaintiff, it is established: **i)** **Clause Fifteenth:** *“…This concession shall be valid *and shall have all effects from the registration thereof in the General Concessions Registry*…”* (folios 40 to 36 of the administrative file; emphasis not in original). Clearly, without prejudice to the fact that registration in the National Concessions Registry is for purposes of third parties and not as indicated there*;* **ii) Clause sixth:** *“…The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted *from the date of approval by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo)*…”* (folios 108 to 101 of the administrative file; emphasis not in original). **B)** In addition to the foregoing, it is proven that **the plaintiff has been unable to enjoy the usufruct in accordance with the coastal regulatory plan**, of parcel 388 located in Playa Esterillos, which was granted in concession by the Municipal Council of Parrita for recreational residential use, and which was not approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute *(folios 31 to 29, 155 to 153, 148 to 127 of the administrative file)*, as the lawyer from the Legal Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the Municipality of Parrita, when answering the query submitted by the plaintiff via email on May 29, 2015, regarding the possibility of granting him a construction permit, if he eventually paid the total sum charged for the concession canon not approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute *(folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file)*, clearly indicated *“…Regarding *the granting of construction permits, they are granted* by the Urban Development department of the Municipality of Parrita, *once the concession is registered in the National Concessions Registry of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the National Registry, which is after the approval or endorsement that must be carried out by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute*…”* (folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file; emphasis not in original). **C)** Likewise, it is noteworthy that in view of the certification appearing on folio 160 of the administrative file, it is evident that file number 2478-2003, in which the plaintiff’s concession application was processed, *“…is duly archived in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department…”*, which is why *it is evident and manifestly contrary to law* that the Municipality of Parrita seeks to charge the plaintiff the annual canon amount from the year 2009 to 2016, which amounted to the sum of ¢9,848,640.00 (nine million eight hundred forty-eight thousand six hundred forty colones) *(images 164 to 166 of the virtual file as of the date of issuance of this judgment; folios 168 to 165, 119 to 117 of the administrative file)*, despite the fact that since May 23, 2014, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute did not approve the concession granted to the plaintiff by the Municipal Council of Parrita and that the file is archived as a result of that denial, as certified by the Secretary of the Municipal Council on July 2, 2014, and that the plaintiff has been unable to enjoy the usufruct of the concession. Finally, this Court considers that **the Municipality has also incurred a violation of numeral 10 of the General Law of Public Administration**, *since it merely applied, in a literal, isolated and illegal manner, the provisions of article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 to the detriment of the claimant*, despite having the duty to interpret it in the manner that best guaranteed the realization of the public purpose it is aimed at, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual, taking into account, for this purpose, the other related norms and the nature and value of the conduct and facts to which it refers. **This illegitimate omission has not only caused the filing of this plenary proceeding, but also forces this Court to interpret article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 in the terms set forth in considering clause III of this judgment, in order to avoid declaring the partial nullity of that regulatory provision**. *Consequently, and for all the foregoing, this Court declares the absolute nullity of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Revenue and Collections Department of the Municipality of Parrita, **and by connection (conexidad)**, of the official letter of September 18, 2015 from the Leasing Section of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter No. 1 of ordinary session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita*. This implies that the Municipality of Parrita may charge the canon to the plaintiff, only when the Costa Rican Tourism Institute approves the concession, **provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are remedied**, namely: the presumed partial location of the parcel on lands of the State Natural Heritage; indeterminacy of the exact site where the concession parcel is located because the boundary markers do not coincide; the supposed invasion of a portion of the public area by one of the fences *(folios 148 to 127, 155 to 153 of the administrative file)*.\n\n**V.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS AND DEFENSES.** This Court concludes that the plaintiff has sufficient **active standing (legitimación activa)** to participate in this proceeding in accordance with article 10, subsection a) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, as the Municipality of Parrita seeks to charge him the canon for the period from the year 2009 to 2016, based on a literal, isolated, and illegal application of article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043, despite the fact that the Costa Rican Tourism Institute did not approve the concession granted to him by the Municipal Council of Parrita. Furthermore, **the action is correctly directed against the State and the Municipality of Parrita,** as provided in subsection 1) of numeral 12 of the cited Code, since they are the authors of the conduct subject to the proceeding, specifically, the issuance of the Regulation to Law 6043 (State) and the collection requirements to the detriment of the plaintiff for the canon for the period from the years 2009 to 2016 (Municipality of Parrita). In turn, **the interest remains current,** as long as the questioned conduct continues to have effects on the plaintiff's legal sphere and requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds, based on all that is set forth in considering clauses III and IV of this judgment, that **the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho)** raised by the State’s representative **is rejected and the lawsuit** filed by Jorge Alberto Jiménez Cordero against the Municipality of Parrita and the State **is granted**, in the following terms, *it being understood as denied whatever is not expressly indicated*: **1) It is declared that** what is provided in numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 **is not illegal, as long as it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Law of Public Administration**, *which implies that the canon may be charged by the municipal entity once the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and communicated to the interested party in the terms of article 140 of the General Law of Public Administration. **Consequently, for cases in which approval is not required**_ (concessions in areas declared as non-tourist, or on islands or islets), the canon will be effective and therefore, may be charged once the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the contract is signed between the Mayor and the concessionaire, based on the partial reform of article 42 of Law 6043 established in numeral 82 of Law 9036, effective from November 30, 2012. **Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the State's expense,** since it was the Executive Branch that enacted the regulatory provision whose conforming interpretation is ordered in this judgment *(article 130, subsection 3 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code)*. **2)** The absolute nullity of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Revenue and Collections Department of the Municipality of Parrita, **and by connection (conexidad)**, of the official letter of September 18, 2015 from the Leasing Section of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter No. 01 of ordinary session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita, is declared. **3)** The Municipality of Parrita is ordered not to charge the canon to the plaintiff until the Costa Rican Tourism Institute approves the concession, **provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are remedied**.-“" }