Bypass Activity and Contractual Termination in Telecommunications ServiceActividad de by pass y terminación contractual en servicio de telecomunicaciones

III.- ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE: In order to decide on the claims sought by the plaintiff, it is appropriate to consider the following elements: In a contract signed by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad and the plaintiff entity, within its clauses, the text of a prohibitive clause was incorporated in clause eight, which delimits the liability of the user for the use made of the service provided by the defendant entity; this limitation of liability arises within the agreed-upon obligatory framework, and in accordance with the terms of the contracted service; it delimits the legal framework applied in that specific contract. Regarding this clause, the plaintiff alleges it is "abusive," indicating that it abuses contractual law in that it transfers to the user an obligation it considers belonging to the entity, namely the safeguarding of the lines to prevent misuse of telecommunications. In response to such a claim, this Chamber of the Tribunal assesses the contractual terms signed between the parties and concludes that the clause contains a clear manifestation of acceptance regarding the use and nature of the contracted service and an express knowledge and acceptance of ICE's power to take the corresponding measures in the event of fraudulent or unauthorized use of the agreed-upon service (see the clause of interest on folio 48 of the first volume of the administrative file). Under this service modality, the provider always maintains assurance of the proper functioning of the contracted service, so that it is provided permanently and efficiently, and any contravention of the agreed-upon use will generate the application of the power contained in clause eight of the contract of interest. Said power, by acting as a protection for the public service used by the plaintiff, is neither abusive nor arbitrary, given the terms of the agreed contract, expressly agreed upon by the will of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff presents grievances regarding an abuse on the part of the defendant entity, throughout the process no probative element has been provided that would allow that clause to be considered abusive. The defendant entity, as part of the Administration, is in charge of a service, and within this, the contracted national telephony modality is governed by the signed contract; using those telephone lines to generate or divert international call traffic violates the signed contract, and the clause alleged to be null is a guarantee in favor of the state entity of the contractual compliance of the contracting party, within the terms agreed upon so that the user enjoys the service. The oversight of that use has two aspects: on one hand, the service-providing entity, in this case the defendant, establishes means for quality and service control through operational audits, and the contracting party, in this case the plaintiff, does so through reporting problems in using the provided service. In the case at hand, the exercise of this power-duty of the contracting parties cannot constitute contractual abuse; it is an intrinsic part of the contract itself, since the aim is the adequate enjoyment of that service. Any activity carried out by the parties outside of that contracting becomes fraudulent in light of the literal text of what was agreed, and does not discharge liability to either of the obligors. On the contrary, clause eight of this contract, in the opinion of this panel, delimits the powers and duties of the parties in this contract should an event outside of what was agreed occur. To these elements, it must be added that once the contract was signed by the parties, at the administrative level, no claim was ever made regarding the imposition of such clauses, and it is only upon the occurrence of the events of interest that the alleged nullity for the claimed abuse is judicially claimed. For these reasons, the clause is deemed valid and in force, and the rejection of the claim against said contractual clause proceeds. It cannot be forgotten that it is the user who is called upon to monitor the service so that compliance with the agreed-upon clauses occurs, and must establish the corresponding internal mechanisms. In this case, these do not exist, or failing that, were not disclosed, which undermines the plaintiff's good faith and makes the possibility of granting the claim pleaded unviable. It goes without saying that even in civil law, the breach by one party in bilateral contracts is accepted in the event of the prior breach by its counterpart, under the exception of non adimpleti contractus, which in the present case would mean that, given the user's breach in the use of the telephone lines, ICE proceeded to suspend them. So in a public service, the power is possible with even greater logic.

IV.- In this matter, it was administratively established, in accordance with the report from the ICE's Telecommunications Security Management Area (Area de Gestión de Seguridad de Telecomunicaciones), that bypass (by pass) consists of a ".... telecommunications fraud that facilitates the establishment of traffic between countries, through platforms built in an alternate or parallel manner to those established by operators legally authorized to carry out this activity, and avoiding the payment of interconnection fees to the destination country, established in the International Telecommunications Convention, an instrument approved by the Government of Costa Rica under Ley 8100, which ratifies in each of its parts the Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union 'ITU' signed in Geneva, Switzerland in 1992, and the amendment instrument signed in Tokyo, Japan in 1994. To exercise these alternative services from the country of origin, traffic is collected from individuals at a network point by dialing special numbers, generally without local rating (toll free), so that the call requester can access an interactive voice response device called IAD (Internet Access Device), which, through a menu, guides the call requester to select the language and allows them to enter, through the telephone keypad, the key numbers printed on each of the cards. With that number, the platform verifies the validity and available balance; if it meets these requirements, it invites the caller to dial the country code, area code if any in the called country, and finally the number they wish to call. The platform is interconnected with international networks, which can be dedicated lines, virtual networks, or other transport technologies, but the broadband Internet network is primarily used. The IAD system converts the voice coming from the public network into data packets over an Internet protocol, to be transported to the destination country to another distant IAD installed in the call's destination country, which unpacks the data and the voice is switched to the national telephone network of the destination country using telephone numbers from the local public network to complete the call to the number previously designated by the call requester..... When alternative networks and national network telephone numbers are used to complete fraudulent calls, two possible alternatives could occur: one where the local number that served as an intermediary in the communication appears, and another, if the person who contracted the services to complete the bypass calls requests the no caller ID category, the screen shows the number as 'Caller ID blocked, private number, anonymous or unavailable.' Under this procedure and parameters, ICE, by conducting a random audit, detected in the numbers assigned to the plaintiff company (22092700, 22936104, 22935804, and 22936105) calls that did not pass through ICE's exchanges but rather through the indicated telephone services assigned to the plaintiff company, via parallel lines, which corresponds to the activity called bypass, without such networks or telephone numbers being authorized by law or contractually with the corresponding permits for such activities. The defendant entity proceeded to review the services assigned to that client - the plaintiff here - confirming, according to note number 5892-002-2009 of January 25 from the personnel of the ICE's Fraud Analysis and Control Subprocess Office (Subproceso Análisis y Control de fraudes), that during the months of December 2009 to January 2010, a total of more than three hundred thousand minutes was reflected among the telephone numbers mentioned above; this is the measure by which the telephone exchange measures conversation time, deemed excessive compared to the total clients of the National Telecommunications System (S.N.T) which at that time had an average consumption of 18,957.20 monthly minutes. It was confirmed that said numbers had 1.67 times more than the average consumption, clearly placing these numbers in the bypass activity, or rather, technically demonstrating that the plaintiff company had carried out bypass activity through the assigned numbers, for which it is responsible regarding their use. Said activity, as provided in Article 55 of the Reglamento General de Servicios de Telecomunicaciones, is not permitted in our country, in addition to the compliance that all users of such services must carry out as provided and ordered by International Conventions (Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, Geneva 1992, and Convention of the Union 1994, ratified under Ley 8100), part of the administrative legal system as ordered by numeral 6 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. The foregoing was recorded in resolution No. 6000-687-2010 of 12:00 hours on March 09, 2010, from the ICE Telecommunications Sector Deputy Management (Subgerencia del Sector Telecomunicaciones), which ratified that through the report transcribed in note No. 5892-137-2010, it was determined that "bypass" (by pass) traffic entered through the services provided by Tentaciones de Costa Rica SA, as stated in the audit quality tests, and that through investigations carried out on the services contracted by Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A., during the months of December 2009 to January 2010, an excessive global consumption was recorded for those four telephone numbers, which furthermore indicated the importation of international call traffic entering Costa Rica via the bypass method and using the telephone service network infrastructure assigned to the company Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. Added to this, the channels authorized to route telecommunications traffic are those previously established and which can only be granted under concession through ICE or RACSA, and clearly, Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. is not registered as a concessionaire company for such services, a fact that further aggravates the situation, establishing the creation of marginal channels or alternate routes outside the relevant legislation.

V.- The plaintiff company states that such activity has not been proven against it, that it had a security system that releases it from the liability attributed to it, and that the concurrence of calls is the product of a presumed "hacking." This situation is scarcely credible, because no evidence has been provided in the case file that reliably proves that the telephone system was not used by the plaintiff for the "bypass" (by pass) activity, nor that the presumed hacking occurred. Furthermore, the plaintiff company affected by the volume of calls, if the third-party intervention were true, should have proceeded to file the respective claim for the impossibility of call transit from its offices to outside or vice versa, a situation that logic and reason allow us to establish as existing when third parties use the telephone lines, preventing the adequate enjoyment of the service, especially regarding its tourism activities. It is worth noting that a third party's conduct as an exemption from liability is not enough to merely argue it; it must be proven in accordance with Articles 317 of the Código Procesal Civil and 220 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, which did not occur in this specific case. Bypass is prohibited in both international standards, namely the Reglamento General de Servicio de Telecomunicaciones, and regarding the concession of said services, it can only be granted as provided in Article 121, paragraph 14 of the Constitución Política, and in this situation, the plaintiff has not proven to be so situated. The fact of abusive use by a third party was not proven in the case file, and the legal counsel of the plaintiff company must remember that said telephone services are in its name and it is precisely its represented party who is called to liability for the activity it conducts, without it being possible to claim that it cannot be determined that a subject of the company Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. committed the fraud, but that it was committed on the occasion of the service it provides, and to that extent, the liability is inherent to the holder of the right. However, contrary to such an allegation, this Tribunal, based on the evidence on file, concludes the existence of bypass. From the technical reports recorded in the case file, as well as the testimony given at the oral trial, the procedure for detecting this type of irregular activity carried out by the company TENTACIONES DE COSTA RICA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA is explained in detail, evidence that was furthermore not questioned or technically rebutted by the plaintiff, as would have been required by the burden imposed by numeral 317 of the Código Procesal Civil, since it limited itself to denying its existence, without providing counter-evidence that would cause this Tribunal to doubt the truthfulness and applicability of the reports provided. Although a report is rendered on the telematic security measures applied internally by the plaintiff company within its organization, the evidence does not explain the excessive call traffic, nor is the impossibility of using those lines demonstrated, both situations that arise from the illegal use by third parties of lines assigned to users. The plaintiff claims that the material development of the activity could not be located; however, the plaintiff's legal representative loses sight of the fact that precisely the type of irregular actions carried out that originate this process, due to their technological nature and the very limitations on entering private facilities without prior notice by ICE officials, cannot be easily located. But that same circumstance does not occur with the technological detection mechanisms that ultimately did allow it to conclude, without any demonstrated error, the channeling of inbound international traffic. Indeed, as was clearly justified in the administrative file, ICE can technically audit the handling of telephone lines without needing to alert those carrying out the irregular activity, thus avoiding its temporary suspension to conceal such anomalous conduct. Consequently, the bypass activity was fully demonstrated through the technical audits conducted, and that position was reinforced during the oral trial hearing. Given the conclusiveness of the same, the plaintiff company limited itself to making objections and assertions lacking probative support, rendering them unproductive and which for this Chamber are also illogical in light of the declaration of the plaintiff company's general manager, who cannot even remember with certainty whether the suspended lines were in use or not at the time the contract of interest was terminated. With the foregoing, it is concluded that the grounds for absolute nullity attributed to the challenged act are nonexistent and, on the contrary, ICE had just cause to terminate the contract signed between the plaintiff and defendant, and to choose the immediate suspension of service as it did, because, by carrying out a bypass activity, TENTACIONES DE COSTA RICA violated numeral 55 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 30110-MP-G-Meic, Reglamento General de Servicios de Telecomunicaciones, subparagraphs d and e - which, incidentally, the plaintiff indicated knowing upon entering into the agreement and incorporated as part of the contract - specifically, subparagraphs d and e which stipulate: "The SNT client or user who does not hold the concession granted by the Costa Rican State is prohibited from the following: d. Varying in any way the destination or purpose of the service contracted with the Operator. e. Using public International Telecommunications services in competition with the operator, whether by using automatic devices that can answer or originate calls, or any other method of extending the circuit to other destinations, through direct line, physical line, virtual line or other that causes the improper use of the Operator's telecommunications infrastructure." And it is certainly the case, as established by numeral 121, paragraph 14 of the Carta Magna, that the plaintiff did not prove it had the legal authorization indicated therein to dispose of the telecommunications services in the manner it did, a position that has been developed and reiterated by the Sala Constitucional in various rulings and has regulatory support in the Ley de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, for example, arts. 38 c) where "the fraudulent use of public goods and services to evade regulated payment" is expressly sanctioned, and d) which sanctions the unauthorized provision of a public service, all of which confirms the bypass activity carried out by the plaintiff, which legally justifies what was ordered through the resolution sought to be annulled.

VI.- The plaintiff claims that the defendant cannot transfer its losses from illegitimate international communications traffic to it; however, the means through which that traffic was conducted were the telephone lines in use by the plaintiff. Therefore, had it been developed legitimately, through legally authorized platforms, it would have generated additional income for the defendant entity, which never reached its coffers given the activity that this Chamber has deemed true regarding "bypass" (by pass). The service contract gives the defendant party the legal possibility that the amounts not received due to an illegal or fraudulent act are recoverable against whoever is held as the actor of those illegitimate actions. In this case, through the administrative procedure, the improper use of the lines was deemed true, a decision this Chamber upholds, so no transfer of losses for causes outside the contract is being discussed; on the contrary, these are losses due to the violation of those contractual limits, being thus the appropriate retribution for the harm caused by the activity, consisting of a lack of income of resources. Consequently, the defendant entity holds the right to administratively declare the plaintiff entity's duty to pay the amounts not received as a consequence of that contractual breach. This Tribunal considers it appropriate to note in this aspect that prudence was exercised when establishing potential damages, by using a reasonable and low value.

VII.- It also claims that ICE engaged in an omission, by not having proceeded to block the numbers of interest from the first international call; however, the fact that the defendant entity waited to continue verifying the data over time does not constitute omission. On the contrary, the undersigned judges believe that the administrative conduct generated in this case aimed at an exhaustive verification of the presumed events giving rise to an illicit act, so while the entity could have acted with the promptness desired by the plaintiff, the truth is that the verification carried out, and the time taken for it, allowed a clear definition of the defendant entity's liability regarding the administratively investigated facts. The fraudulent act is not thereby released, because the entity must guarantee compliance with all stages of the procedure prior to that suspension of service. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds an incoherence in the plaintiff's reasoning, who dedicates most of its arguments to exonerating the illegality of the service cut (to the extreme of claiming liability for that conduct), but, with respect to the payments for the illegally performed services, suggests that the cut should have been carried out more expeditiously.

VIII.- Consequently, in the opinion of those deciding, the alleged absolute nullity of the contractual clause does not exist, there is no sanction imposable on the administration for the form used in the administrative procedure to verify the investigated facts and affectation to the agreed-upon service, the guarantees inherent to the contractual relationship were respected, and proper communication of the resolving decisions in this contract were, in the opinion of this Chamber, actions aimed at fulfilling the administrative procedure in accordance with the powers of the defendant entity, so that the execution of its administrative resolutions is found to have been issued under the protection of the legal system given the circumstances and proven facts regarding the contract between the plaintiff and defendant entity. As a result, the defendant's conduct and the evidence collected for the purposes of this process impose the rejection of the claims of the lawsuit, for which the lack of legal right invoked by the defendant party must be upheld, as it has been proven that the claim filed has no legal BASIS. Likewise, since these claims are the basis for a potential award of damages, as it lacks support and also the existence of economic detriment attributable to the defendant has not been proven, the claim filed on this point must also be rejected, with the award of costs meeting the same fate.

The provider under this service modality always maintains the assurance of the proper functioning of the contracted service, so that it is provided permanently and efficiently, and any contravention of the agreed use will trigger the application of the power contained in clause eight of the contract of interest. Said power, by acting as a protection for the public service used by the plaintiff, is neither abusive nor arbitrary, given the terms of the agreed-upon contract, expressly agreed to by the will of the plaintiff. While the claimant party sets forth its grievances regarding an abuse on the part of the defendant entity, throughout the proceedings no evidentiary element was provided that would allow that clause to be deemed abusive. The defendant entity, as part of the Administration, is in charge of a service, and within it, the contracted national telephone modality is governed by the signed contract; using those telephone lines to generate or divert international call traffic transgresses the signed contract, given that the clause alleged to be null and void serves as a guarantee in favor of the state entity of the contracting party's contractual compliance, under the terms agreed upon so that the user may enjoy the service. The oversight of that use has two aspects: on the one hand, the service provider, in this case the defendant, establishes means for quality and service control through operational audits, and the contracting party, in this case the plaintiff, through reporting problems in the use of the service provided. In the case at hand, the exercise of that power-duty of the contracting parties cannot constitute contractual abuse; it is an intrinsic part of the contract itself, since the goal is the adequate enjoyment of that service. Any activity carried out by the parties outside that contracting becomes fraudulent in light of the literal meaning of what was agreed upon, and does not relieve any of the obligated parties of responsibility; on the contrary, clause eight of this contract, in the opinion of this panel, delimits the powers and duties of the parties in this contract in the eventuality of an act outside what was agreed upon. To these elements, it must be added that once the contract was signed by the parties, at the administrative level no claim was ever made regarding the imposition of such clauses, and it was not until the occurrence of the facts of interest that the alleged nullity due to that claimed abuse was judicially claimed. For these reasons, the clause is deemed valid and in force, and the rejection of the claim against said contractual clause is appropriate. It cannot be forgotten in this regard that it is the user who is called upon to monitor the service so that compliance with the agreed-upon clauses is achieved, and must establish the corresponding internal mechanisms. In this particular case, these do not exist or, failing that, were not disclosed, which undermines the plaintiff's good faith and makes the possibility of granting the claim raised unsustainable. It goes without saying that even in civil law, in bilateral contracts, the non-performance by one party is accepted given the prior non-performance by its counterpart under the exceptio non adimpleti contractus, which in this case would mean that given the user's non-compliance in the use of the telephone lines, ICE proceeded to suspend them. Thus, in a public service, this power is even more logically possible.

**IV.-** It was administratively established in this matter, in accordance with the report from the Telecommunications Security Management Area of ICE, that by pass consists of a "**....telecommunications fraud that facilitates the establishment of traffic between countries, through platforms that are built in an alternate or parallel manner to those established by operators legally authorized to carry out this activity, avoiding the payment of interconnection to the destination country, established in the International Telecommunication Convention, an instrument approved by the Government of Costa Rica under Law 8100, where it ratifies in each of its parts the Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union "UIT" signed in Geneva, Switzerland in 1992 and the instrument of amendment signed in Tokyo, Japan 1994. To exercise these alternative services from the country of origin, traffic from individuals is collected at a point in the network by dialing special numbers, generally without local assessment (toll free), so that the caller can access an interactive voice response device called IAD (Internet Access Device), which through a menu guides the caller to select the language and allows them to enter, through the telephone keypad, the key numbers printed on each of the cards. With that number, the platform verifies the validity and available balance; if it meets these requirements, it invites them to dial the country code, area code if any in the called country, and finally the number they wish to call. The platform interconnects with international networks, which may be dedicated lines, virtual lines, or other transport technologies, but primarily uses the broadband Internet network. The IAD system converts the voice coming from the public network into data packets over an Internet protocol, to be transported to the destination country to another distant IAD installed in the country of destination of the call, which unpacks the data and the voice is switched to the national telephone network of the destination country using telephone numbers from the local public network to complete the call to the number previously designated by the caller..... When alternative networks and telephone numbers from the national network are used to complete fraudulent calls, two possible alternatives could occur: one, that the local number that acted as an intermediary in the communication appears, and another, if the person who contracted the services to complete the by pass calls requests the category of non-identification of calls, the screen of the number shows "caller ID blocked, private number, anonymous or not available."** Under that procedure and parameters, ICE, when carrying out a random audit, detected in the numbers assigned to the plaintiff company (22092700, 22936104, 22935804, and 22936105) calls that did not pass through ICE's exchanges, but rather through the indicated telephone services assigned to the claimant company, via parallel lines, which corresponds to the activity called by pass, without such networks or telephone numbers being authorized by law, or contractually with the corresponding permits for such activities. The defendant entity proceeded to review the services assigned to that client - *the plaintiff herein* -, confirming, according to note number 5892-002-2009 of January 25 from the personnel of the Subprocess Office for Fraud Analysis and Control of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, that during the months of December 2009 to January 2010, a total of more than three hundred thousand minutes were reflected among the telephone numbers mentioned above; this is the measure by which the telephone exchange measures conversation time, considered excessive when compared to the total number of clients of the National Telecommunications System (S.N.T.) which had at that time an average consumption of 18,957.20 minutes per month. Confirming that said numbers had 1.67 times more than the average consumption, for the case of these numbers, clearly placing them in the activity of by pass or, rather, technically demonstrating that the plaintiff company had carried out, through the assigned numbers and for whose use it is responsible, the activity of by pass. This activity, as provided in Article 55 of the Reglamento General de Servicios de Telecomunicaciones, is not permitted in our country, in addition to the compliance that all users of said services must carry out as provided and ordered by the International Conventions (Convention of the International Telecommunication Union Geneva 1992 and Convention of the Union of 1994 ratified under Law 8100), which are part of the administrative legal system as ordered by numeral 6 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. The foregoing was recorded in Resolution No. 6000-687-2010 of 12:00 hours on March 09, 2010, from the Deputy Management of the Telecommunications Sector of ICE, in which it was ratified that through the report transcribed in note No. 5892-137-2010, it was determined that through the services provided by Tentaciones de Costa Rica SA, "by pass" traffic entered, as stated in the audit quality tests, and that through investigations carried out on the services contracted by Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A., in the months of December 2009 to January 2010, for those four telephone numbers an excessive global consumption was recorded, and that there was also importation of international call traffic entering Costa Rica through the by pass method, using the infrastructure of the telephone service networks assigned to the company Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. Added to this, the authorized channels for routing telecommunications traffic are those previously established and which can only be granted under concession through ICE or RACSA, and clearly, Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. is not registered as a concessionaire company for such services, a fact that aggravates the situation further, by establishing the creation of marginal channels or alternate routes outside the legislation on the matter.

**V.**- The plaintiff company states that such activity has not been proven against it, that it had a security system that frees it from the responsibility attributed to it, and that the concurrence of calls is the product of an alleged "hacking"; this situation is rather untrue, since no evidence has been provided in the record that credibly proves that the telephone system was not used by the plaintiff for the "by pass" activity, nor that the alleged hacking occurred. Furthermore, the plaintiff company, affected by the volume of calls, if the intervention of third parties were true, should have proceeded to file the respective claim for impossibility of transit of calls from its offices, to the outside or vice versa, a situation that logic and reason allow to be established as existing when third-party use of telephone lines occurs, preventing the adequate enjoyment of the service, especially in relation to its tourism activities. It is worth noting that the conduct of a third party as an exemption from liability is not enough to merely argue it, but must be proven in accordance with Articles 317 of the Código Procesal Civil and 220 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, which in this specific case did not occur. By pass is prohibited both in international regulations, namely the Reglamento General de Servicio de Telecomunicaciones, and regarding the concession of said services, this can only be granted as provided in Article 121, subsection 14 of the Constitución Política, and in this situation the plaintiff has not proven to be found; the fact of abusive use by a third party was not proven in the record, and the representation of the plaintiff company must remember that said telephone services are in its name and it is precisely its represented party that is called to responsibility for the activity it provides, without being able to allege that it is not possible to determine that it was a subject of the company Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. who carried out the fraud, but that it was carried out on the occasion of the service it provides and, to that extent, the responsibility, being the holder of the right, is inherent to it. However, contrary to such allegation, this Tribunal, based on the evidence in the record, concludes the existence of by pass. From the technical reports contained in the expediente, as well as the testimony given at the oral trial, the procedure to detect this type of irregular activity carried out by the company TENTACIONES DE COSTA RICA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA is explained in detail, evidence that, moreover, was not questioned or technically refuted by the plaintiff, as was appropriate given the burden imposed by numeral 317 of the Código Procesal Civil, since it limited itself to denying its existence, without providing counter-evidence that would make this Tribunal doubt the veracity and applicability of the reports provided. While a report is given on the security acts at the telematic level applied by the plaintiff company internally within its organization, the evidence does not explain the excessive call traffic, nor does it demonstrate the impossibility of using those lines, both situations that arise from the illegal use by third parties of lines assigned to users. The plaintiff affirms that the physical development of the activity could not be located; however, the legal representative of the plaintiff loses sight of the fact that precisely the type of actions carried out irregularly that give rise to this process, due to their technological nature and due to the inherent limitations of entering private facilities without prior notice by ICE officials, cannot be easily located. But that same circumstance does not occur in the case of the technological detection mechanisms that ultimately did allow concluding, without any demonstrated error, the channeling of incoming international traffic. Indeed, as was clearly justified in the administrative expediente, ICE can technically audit the handling of telephone lines without the need to alert those carrying out the irregular activity, thus preventing its temporary suspension to hide such anomalous conduct. Thus, the activity of by pass was fully demonstrated through the technical audits carried out, and that proposition was reinforced during the oral trial hearing. Given the strength of the same, the plaintiff company limited itself to making oppositions and affirmations lacking evidentiary support, which transmutes them into infertile statements that, for this Chamber, are also illogical in light of the statement of the general manager of the plaintiff company, who does not even remember with certainty whether the suspended lines were in use or not at the time the contract of interest was terminated. With the foregoing, it is concluded that the causes of absolute nullity attributed to the challenged act are non-existent and, on the contrary, ICE had just cause to terminate the contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant, and to opt for the immediate suspension of the service as it did, because, by carrying out a by pass activity, TENTACIONES DE COSTA RICA transgressed numeral 55 of the Decreto Ejecutivo No 30110-MP-G-MEIC, Reglamento General de Servicios de Telecomunicaciones, subsections d and e -which, incidentally, the plaintiff indicated knowing when entering into the agreement and incorporated as part of the contract-, specifically, subsections d and e, which stipulate: "**The client or user of the SNT, who does not have the concession granted by the Costa Rican State, is prohibited from the following: d. Varying in any way the destination or purpose of the service contracted with the Operator. e. Using public International Telecommunications services in competition with the operator, whether through the use of automatic devices that can answer or originate calls, or any other method of extending the circuit to other destinations, via direct line, physical line, virtual line, or any other that causes the improper use of the Operator's telecommunications infrastructure.**" And it is indeed, as established by numeral 121, subsection 14 of the Carta Magna, the plaintiff did not prove it had the legal authorization indicated therein to dispose of the telecommunications services in the manner it did, a proposition that has been developed and reiterated by the Sala Constitucional in various rulings and has normative support in the Law of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, for example, arts 38. **c)** where "the fraudulent use of public goods and services to evade regulated payment" is expressly sanctioned and **d)** which sanctions the unauthorized provision of a public service, all of which confirms the by pass activity carried out by the plaintiff, which legally justifies what was ordered through the resolution sought to be annulled.

**VI.-** The plaintiff claims that the defendant cannot transfer its losses for illegitimate international communications traffic to it; however, the means through which that traffic was carried out were the telephone lines in use by the plaintiff. Therefore, had it been carried out legitimately through legally authorized platforms, it would have generated additional income for the defendant entity, which never reaches its power given the activity that this Chamber has held to be true regarding "by pass"; the service contract gives the defendant party the legal possibility that the amounts failed to be received due to an illegal or fraudulent act are recoverable against whoever is considered the actor of those illegitimate actions. In this case, through the administrative procedure, the improper use of the lines was held as true, a decision this Chamber upholds, so here we are not speaking of a transfer of losses for causes outside the contract; on the contrary, it involves losses due to the violation of those contractual limits, thus being the appropriate retribution for the harm caused by the activity, consisting of a lack of resource income. Consequently, the defendant entity holds the right to administratively declare the duty of the plaintiff entity to pay what it failed to receive as a consequence of that contractual breach. This Tribunal considers it appropriate in that aspect to point out that prudence is observed when establishing eventual damages, by using a reasonable and low value.

**VII.-** It also claims that ICE incurred in an omission (omisiva) conduct, by not having proceeded from the first international call to block the numbers of interest; however, the fact that the defendant entity waited to continue with the verification of data over time does not constitute omission (omisiva) conduct. On the contrary, the signatories consider that the administrative conduct generated for the present case aimed at an exhaustive verification of the alleged acts giving rise to an illicit act, so that although the entity could have acted with the promptness desired by the plaintiff, the truth is that the verification carried out, and the time taken for that purpose, allowed clearly delimiting the responsibility of the defendant entity regarding the facts investigated administratively. The fraudulent act is not thereby released, because the entity must guarantee compliance with all the stages of the procedure prior to that suspension of service. Likewise, the Tribunal finds an incoherence in the reasoning of the plaintiff, who dedicates most of its arguments to exonerating the illegality of the service cutoff (to the extreme of claiming liability for that conduct), yet, with respect to the payments for the illegally rendered services, suggests that the cutoff should have been carried out more expeditiously.

**VIII.-** Consequently, in the opinion of those deciding, the absolute nullity alleged against the contractual clause does not exist; there is no sanction imposable on the administration for the form used in the administrative procedure for the verification of the investigated facts and the impact on the agreed-upon service; the inherent guarantees of the contractual relationship were respected, and proper communication of the decisive resolutions in this contract occurred. In the opinion of this Chamber, actions were taken aimed at complying with the administrative procedure in a manner consistent with the powers of the defendant entity, so that the execution of its administrative resolutions is found to be issued under the protection of the legal system in light of the circumstances and proven facts regarding the contract between the plaintiff and defendant entities. Consequently, the conduct of the defendant and evidence gathered for the purposes of this process impose the rejection of the claims of the lawsuit, for which the lack of Right invoked by the defendant party must be accepted, as it has been proven that the claim presented has no legal basis. Likewise, since said claims are the basis for a potential award of damages and losses, since it lacks support and, moreover, the existence of economic detriment attributable to the defendant was not proven, the claim raised on this point must also be rejected, and the claim for costs meets the same fate.

**III.- ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE:** In order to decide on the claims demanded by the plaintiff, it is appropriate to consider the following elements: In a contract entered into by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad and the plaintiff entity, within its clauses, the text of a prohibitive clause was incorporated in clause eight, which delimits the user's liability for the use made of the service provided by the defendant entity; this limitation of liability arises within the agreed-upon binding framework (marco obligacional), and in accordance with the terms of the contracted service; it delimits the legality framework that applies to that specific contract. Regarding said clause, the plaintiff alleges a condition "abusive," indicating that it abuses contractual rights by transferring to the user an obligation it considers proper to the entity, namely the safeguarding of lines to prevent improper use of telecommunications. In response to such a claim, this Chamber of the Tribunal assesses the contractual terms entered into between the parties and concludes that the clause contains a clear manifestation of acceptance regarding the use and nature of the contracted service and an express acknowledgment and acceptance of ICE's power to take the corresponding measures in the event of fraudulent or unauthorized use of the agreed service (see folio 48 of the first volume of the administrative file for the clause of interest). The provider under this service modality always maintains the assurance of the proper functioning of the contracted service, so that it is provided permanently and efficiently, and any contravention of the agreed use will generate the application of the power contained in clause eight of the contract of interest. Said power, by acting as a protection of the public service used by the plaintiff, is neither abusive nor arbitrary, due to the terms of the agreed contract, expressly agreed by the will of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff sets forth its grievances about an abuse on the part of the defendant entity, throughout the process no evidentiary element is provided that would allow that clause to be considered abusive. The defendant entity, as part of the Administration (la Administración), is in charge of a service, and within it, the contracted national telephone modality is governed by the signed contract; using those telephone lines to generate or divert international call traffic violates the signed contract, and the clause challenged as void constitutes a guarantee in favor of the state entity of the contractual compliance of the contracting party, in the agreed terms so that the user enjoys the service. The oversight of that use has two aspects: on the one hand, the serving entity, in this case the defendant, establishes means for quality and service control, through operational audits, and the contracting party, in this case the plaintiff, through reporting problems in the use of the provided service. In the present case, the exercise of this power-duty of the contracting parties cannot constitute a contractual abuse; it is an intrinsic part of the contract itself, since the proper enjoyment of that service is intended. Any activity developed by the parties outside of that contract becomes fraudulent in light of the literal wording of what was agreed, and does not discharge the responsibility to either of the obligors; on the contrary, clause eight of this contract, in the opinion of this panel, delimits the powers and duties of the parties in this contract in the event of an event foreign to what was agreed. To these elements, it must be added that, once the contract was signed by the parties, at the administrative level no claim was ever made regarding the imposition of such clauses, and it was not until the occurrence of the events of interest that the alleged nullity due to that claimed abuse is judicially claimed, reasons for which the clause is deemed valid and effective, and the rejection of the claim against said contractual clause proceeds. It cannot be forgotten in this regard that it is the user who is called to monitor the service so that compliance with the agreed clauses occurs, and they must establish the corresponding internal mechanisms. In this case, these do not exist or, failing that, were not disclosed, which undermines the good faith of the plaintiff and makes the possibility of granting the claim raised untenable. It goes without saying that even in civil law, non-performance by one party is accepted in bilateral contracts, following the prior non-performance of its counterpart, under the exception non adimplet contractus, which for this case would be that upon the user's non-compliance in the use of the telephone lines, ICE proceeded to suspend them. Thus, in a public service, the power is logically even more possible.

**IV.-** It was established administratively in this matter, in accordance with the report from the ICE Telecommunications Security Management Area (Area de Gestión de Seguridad de Telecomunicaciones), that bypass (by pass) consists of a "**.... fraud in telecommunications that facilitates the establishment of traffic between countries, through platforms that are built in an alternate or parallel manner to those established by the operators legally authorized to carry out this activity and to avoid the payment of interconnection to the destination country, established in the International Telecommunications Convention, an instrument approved by the Government of Costa Rica under Law 8100, where the Constitution (la Constitución) and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union "ITU" signed in Geneva, Switzerland in 1992 and the instrument of amendment signed in Tokyo, Japan 1994 are ratified in each of its parts. To exercise these alternative services from the originating country, traffic from private individuals is collected at a point in the network by dialing special numbers, generally without local rating (toll free) so that the call requester can access an interactive voice response equipment called IAD (Internet Access Device), which, through a menu, guides the call requester so they can select the language and allows them to enter, through the keypad of the telephone device, the key numbers printed on each of the cards. With that number, the platform verifies the validity and the available balance; if it meets these requirements, it invites them to dial the country code, area code if any in the called country, and finally the number they wish to call. The platform interconnects with international networks, which may be dedicated lines, virtual lines, or other transport technologies, but primarily the broadband Internet network is used. The IAD system converts the voice coming from the public network into data packets over an Internet protocol, to be transported to the destination country to another distant IAD installed in the call's destination country, which unpacks the data and the voice is switched to the national telephone network of the destination country using telephone numbers from the local public network to complete the call to the number previously designated by the call requester..... When alternative networks and telephone numbers from the national network are used to complete fraudulent calls, two possible alternatives could occur: one, that the local number that mediated in the communication appears, and another, if the person who contracted the services to complete the bypass calls requests the category of no caller identification, "Call ID blocked, private number, anonymous, or unavailable" appears on the number's screen.** Under that procedure and parameters, ICE, upon conducting a random audit, detected on the numbers assigned to the plaintiff company (22092700, 22936104, 22935804, and 22936105) calls that did not pass through ICE's central exchanges, but rather through the indicated telephone services assigned to the plaintiff company, via parallel lines, which corresponds to the activity known as bypass (by pass), without such networks or telephone numbers being authorized by law or contractually with the corresponding permits for such activities. The defendant entity proceeded to review the services assigned to that client - *the plaintiff here* -, confirming, according to note number 5892-002-2009 of January 25 from the staff of the Subprocess Analysis and Fraud Control (Subproceso Análisis y Control de fraudes) office of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad that during the months of December 2009 to January 2010, a total of more than three hundred thousand minutes were reflected among the aforementioned telephone numbers; this is the measurement by which the telephone exchange measures conversation time, considered excessive compared to the total number of clients that the National Telecommunications System (Sistema Nacional de Telecomunicaciones, S.N.T) had at that time, with an average consumption of 18,957.20 minutes per month. Confirming that said numbers had 1.67 times more than the average consumption, in the case of these numbers, clearly placing them in the activity of bypass or rather technically demonstrating that the plaintiff company had carried out, through the assigned numbers for whose use it is responsible, the activity of bypass, which, pursuant to the provisions of Article 55 of the General Regulation of Telecommunications Services (Reglamento General de Servicios de Telecomunicaciones), is not permitted in our country, in addition to the compliance that all users of such services must carry out as provided and ordered by the International Conventions (Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, Geneva 1992 and Convention of the Union of 1994, ratified under Law 8100), part of the administrative legal system as ordered by numeral 6 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). The foregoing was recorded in Resolution No. 6000-687-2010 at 12:00 hours on March 9, 2010, from the Deputy Management of the Telecommunications Sector (Subgerencia del Sector Telecomunicaciones) of ICE, in which it was ratified that through the report transcribed in Note No. 5892-137-2010, it was possible to determine that through the services provided by Tentaciones de Costa Rica SA, "bypass" traffic entered, as recorded in the audit quality tests, and that through investigations carried out on the services contracted by Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A., in the months of December 2009 to January 2010, for those four telephone numbers, excessive global consumption was recorded, that there also existed an importation of international call traffic entering Costa Rica via the bypass method and that uses the network infrastructure of telephone services assigned to the company Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. Added to this, it is understood that the authorized channels for routing telecommunications traffic are those previously established and that may only be concessioned through ICE or RACSA, and it is clear that Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. is not registered as a concessionaire company of such services, a fact that further aggravates the situation, by establishing the creation of marginal channels or alternate routes outside the margins of the subject legislation.

**V.-** The plaintiff company states that such activity has not been proven to it, that it had a security system that frees it from the responsibility attributed to it, and that the concurrence of calls is the product of a presumed "hacking" (hackeo); this situation turns out to be rather untrue, since no proof has been provided in the record to credibly demonstrate that the telephone system was not used by the plaintiff for the "bypass" activity, nor that the presumed hacking occurred. Furthermore, the plaintiff company, affected by the call volume, had the intervention of third parties been true, should have proceeded to make the respective claim for the impossibility of transit of calls from its offices to the outside or vice versa, a situation that logic and reason allow to be established as existing when third-party use of the telephone lines occurs, which prevents the adequate enjoyment of the service, especially in relation to its tourism activities. It is worth noting that the conduct of a third party as an exemption from liability is not enough to merely argue it but must be proven in accordance with Articles 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) and 220 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), which in the specific case does not occur. Bypass is prohibited both in international norms, namely the General Regulation of Telecommunications Service, and regarding the concession of these services, it can only be granted as provided by Article 121, paragraph 14, of the Political Constitution (la Constitución Política), and in this situation, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is in that position; the fact of abusive use by a third party was not proven in the record, and the representation of the plaintiff company must remember that said telephone services are in its name, and it is precisely its represented party who is called to responsibility for the activity it provides, without it being possible to allege that it is not possible to determine if it was a subject of the company Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. who committed the fraud, but rather that it was carried out on the occasion of the service it provides, and to that extent, the responsibility, being the holder of the right, is inherent to it. However, contrary to such an allegation, this Tribunal, based on the evidence in the record, concludes the existence of bypass. From the technical reports contained in the file, as well as from the testimony given at the oral trial, the procedure to detect that type of irregular activity carried out by the company TENTACIONES DE COSTA RICA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA is explained in detail, proof that was also not questioned or technically refuted by the plaintiff, as was corresponding given the burden imposed by numeral 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, since it merely limited itself to denying its existence, without providing counter-proof that would make this Tribunal doubt the veracity and applicability of the provided reports. Although a report is submitted on the telematic security acts applied internally by the plaintiff company to its organization, the evidence does not explain the excessive transit of calls, nor is the impossibility of using those lines demonstrated, both situations that arise from the illegal use by third parties of lines assigned to users. The plaintiff affirms that the development of the activity could not be materially located; however, the legal representative of the plaintiff loses sight of the fact that, precisely the type of actions carried out in an irregular manner that originate this process, due to their technological nature and the inherent limitations of entering private facilities without prior notice by ICE officials, cannot be easily located. But that same circumstance does not occur in the case of technological detection mechanisms that ultimately did allow concluding, without any demonstrated error, the channeling of incoming international traffic. In effect, as was clearly justified in the administrative file, ICE can technically audit the management of telephone lines without the need to alert those performing the irregular activity, thus avoiding their temporary suspension to conceal such anomalous behavior. In such a way that the bypass activity was fully demonstrated through the technical audits carried out, and this approach was reinforced during the oral trial hearing. Given the conclusiveness of the same, the plaintiff corporation merely made objections and affirmations lacking evidentiary support, which transmutes them into unfruitful ones that, for this Chamber, are also illogical in light of the statement of the general manager of the plaintiff company, who does not even remember with certainty whether the suspended lines were in use or not at the time the contract of interest was terminated. With the foregoing, it is concluded that the causes of absolute nullity attributed to the questioned act are non-existent, and on the contrary, ICE had just cause to resolve the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, and to opt for the immediate suspension of service as it did, because, upon TENTACIONES DE COSTA RICA carrying out a bypass activity, it violated numeral 55 of Executive Decree No. 30110-MP-G-Meic (Decreto Ejecutivo No 30110-MP-G-Meic), General Regulation of Telecommunications Services, subsections d and e - which, by the way, the plaintiff indicated it was aware of when making the agreement and incorporated them as part of the contract -, specifically, subsections d and e, which stipulate: "**The client or user of the SNT who does not have the concession granted by the Costa Rican State is prohibited from the following: d. Varying in any form the destination or purpose of the service contracted with the Operator. e. Using public International Telecommunications services in competition with the operator, either through the use of automatic devices that can answer or originate calls, or any other method of circuit extension to other destinations, via direct line, physical line, virtual line, or other that causes the improper use of the Operator's telecommunications infrastructure.** " And it is certainly true, as established by numeral 121, paragraph 14, of the Magna Carta (la Carta Magna), that the plaintiff did not prove it had the legal authorization indicated therein to dispose of the telecommunications services in the manner it did, an approach that has been developed and reiterated by the Constitutional Chamber (la Sala Constitucional) in various rulings and has normative support in the Law of the Regulatory Authority of Public Services, for example, articles 38.

**c)** where "the fraudulent use of public goods and services to evade regulated payment" is expressly penalized, and **d)** which penalizes the unauthorized provision of a public service, all of which confirms the bypass activity carried out by the plaintiff, which legally justifies what was ordered through the resolution sought to be annulled.

**VI.-** The plaintiff claims that the defendant cannot transfer to her its losses from illegitimate international communications traffic; however, the means through which that traffic was carried out were the telephone lines in use by the plaintiff, so that had it been conducted legitimately, through legally authorized platforms, it would generate additional income for the defendant entity, which never reaches its possession given the activity that this Chamber has held as proven regarding "by pass"; the service contract gives the defendant the legal possibility that the amounts forgone due to an illegal or fraudulent act against whoever is held to be the actor of those illegitimate actions is appropriate; in this case, through the administrative proceeding, the improper use of the lines was held as proven, a decision that this Chamber upholds, so that what is being discussed here is not a transfer of losses for causes extraneous to the contract; on the contrary, it concerns losses due to the violation of those contractual limits, thus being the appropriate compensation for the harm caused by the activity, consisting of a lack of income of resources; therefore, the defendant entity holds the right to administratively declare the plaintiff entity's duty to pay what was forgone as a consequence of that contractual breach. This Court deems it appropriate in that regard to note that prudence was exercised when establishing eventual damages, by using a reasonable and low value.

**VII.-** She likewise claims that ICE engaged in an omission (omisiva), by not having proceeded to block the numbers of interest from the first international call; however, the fact that the defendant entity waited to continue with the verification of the data over time does not constitute an omission (omisiva); on the contrary, the signatories consider that the administrative conduct generated for the present case had as its purpose an exhaustive verification of alleged facts giving rise to an unlawful act, so that although the entity could have acted with the promptness desired by the plaintiff, the truth is that the verification carried out, and the time taken to that end, allowed clear delimitation of the defendant entity's liability regarding the facts investigated administratively, thereby not releasing the fraudulent act because the entity must guarantee itself compliance with all stages of the procedure prior to that suspension of service. Likewise, the Court identifies an inconsistency in the reasoning of the plaintiff, who devotes most of her arguments to exonerating the illegality of the service cutoff (to the point of claiming liability for that conduct), yet, with respect to the payments for the services rendered illegally, contends that the cutoff should have been carried out more expeditiously.

**VIII.-** Consequently, in the opinion of those deciding, there is no absolute nullity attributed to the contractual clause, there is no penalty imposable on the administration for the form used in the administrative proceeding for the verification of the facts investigated and the impact on the agreed service; the guarantees inherent to the contractual relationship were respected, and due communication of the resolutory decisions in this contract occurred; in this Chamber's opinion, actions aimed at compliance with the administrative proceeding occurred in accordance with the powers of the defendant entity, so that the execution of its administrative resolutions are issued under the protection of the legal order given the circumstances and facts proven regarding the contract between the plaintiff and defendant entities, such that the defendant's conduct and the evidence gathered for the purposes of this proceeding compel rejection of the claims of the lawsuit, for which the lack of Right invoked by the defendant must be upheld, since it has been proven that the complaint filed has no legal BASIS (ASIDERO). Likewise, since said claims form the basis of a potential condemnation for damages, once they are left without support and, moreover, the existence of economic detriment attributable to the defendant has not been proven, the claim raised on this point must also be rejected, the condemnation for costs meeting the same fate."

¨ III.- DEL FONDO DEL ASUNTO: A fin de decidir sobre los extremos reclamados por la parte actora procede considerar los siguientes elementos: En un contrato suscrito por el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad y la entidad actora, dentro de sus cláusulas se incorporó en el numeral octavo el texto de una cláusula prohibitiva, misma que delimita la responsabilidad del usuario por el uso que de al servicio prestado por la entidad demandada; esa limitación de la responsabilidad surge dentro del marco obligacional pactado, y acorde con los términos del servicio contratado; es delimitante del marco de legalidad que se aplica en ese contrato concreto. Sobre dicha cláusula aduce la actora una condición "abusiva·, indica que la misma abusa del derecho contractual por cuanto transfiere al usuario una obligación que considera propia del ente, a saber el resguardo de las líneas para evitar uso indebido de las telecomunicaciones. En atención a tal reclamo, valora los términos contractuales suscritos entre partes esta Cámara del Tribunal y concluye que la cláusula contiene una clara manifestación de aceptación acerca del uso y naturaleza del servicio contratado y un expreso conocimiento y aceptación de la facultad del ICE de tomar las medidas correspondientes para el caso de uso fraudulento o no autorizado del servicio pactado (véase a folio 48 del tomo primero del expediente administrativo la cláusula de interés). El prestador bajo esta modalidad de servicio, siempre mantiene el aseguramiento del debido funcionamiento del servicio contratado, para que se preste en forma permanente y eficiente, y cualquier contravención al uso convenido, generará la aplicación de la facultad contenida en el numeral octavo del contrato de interés. Dicha facultad al actuar como una protección al servicio público utilizado por la parte actora, no resulta ni abusiva ni arbitraria, por los términos del contrato pactado, expresamente convenido por la voluntad de la parte actora. Si bien la parte accionante expone sus agravios sobre un abuso de parte de la entidad demandada, a lo largo del proceso no se aporta ningún elemento probatorio que permita tener esa cláusula como abusiva. El ente demandado como parte de la Administración, se encuentra a cargo de un servicio, y dentro de éste la modalidad contratada de telefonía nacional se ve reglada por el contrato firmado, hacer uso de esas líneas telefónicas para generar o desviar tráfico internacional de llamadas transgrede el contrato firmado siendo que la cláusula tachada de nula, viene a ser una garantía a favor del ente estatal del cumplimiento contractual de la parte contratante, en los términos pactados de forma que se de el disfrute del servicio por parte del usuario, la fiscalización de ese uso tiene dos vertientes; por una parte el ente servidor, en este caso la demandada, establece medios para control de calidad y servicio, por medio de auditorias operativas y la parte contratante, en este caso la actora, a través de reporte de problemas en el uso del servicio prestado. En el caso de marras, el ejercicio de ese poder-deber de las partes contratantes, no puede constituirse en abuso contractual, es parte intrínseca del contrato mismo, ya que se pretende el disfrute de ese servicio en forma adecuada, cualquier actividad desarrollada por las partes ajena a esa contratación deviene en fraudulento a la luz de la literalidad de lo pactado, y no descarga la responsabilidad hacia ninguno de los obligados, al contrario, la cláusula octava de este contrato, delimita a criterio de esta integración los poderes y deberes de las partes en este contrato ante la eventualidad de un hecho ajeno a lo convenido. A estos elementos debe adicionarse que firmado el contrato por las partes, a nivel administrativo nunca se hizo reclamación alguna de la imposición de tal clausulado y es hasta el acometimiento de los hechos de interés que se reclama judicialmente la presunta nulidad por ese abuso que se reclama, motivos por los que se estima la cláusula válida y vigente y procede el rechazo de la pretensión contra dicha cláusula contractual. No puede olvidarse sobre el particular que es el usuario quien está llamado a vigilar el servicio para que se de el cumplimiento de las cláusulas pactadas, debiendo establecer los mecanismos internos correspondientes. En lo que al caso corresponde estos no existen o en su defecto, no fueron revelados, lo que mina la buena fe de la actora y hace insubsistente la posibilidad de acceder a la pretensión planteada Por demás está decir que hasta en el derecho civil se acepta en los contratos bilaterales el incumplimiento de una parte, ante el previo incumplimiento de su contraparte bajo la excepción non adimplet contractus, que para el caso sería que ante el incumplimiento del usuario en el uso de las líneas telefónicas el ICE procedió a la suspensión de ellas. De manera que en un servicio público con mayor lógica es posible la facultad.

IV.- Se estableció administrativamente en este asunto, de conformidad con el informe, del Area de Gestión de Seguridad de Telecomunicaciones del ICE, que el by pass consiste en un ".... fraude en telecomunicaciones que facilita el establecimiento del tráfico entre países, a través de plataformas que se construyen en forma alterna o paralelas, a las establecidas por los operadores legalmente autorizados para realizar esta actividad y obviar el pago de interconexión al país de destino, establecido en el Convenio Internacional de Telecomunicaciones, instrumento aprobado por el Gobierno de Costa Rica según Ley 8100, donde se ratifica en cada unas de sus partes la Constitución y el Convenio de la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones "UIT" suscrito en Ginebra, Suiza en 1992 y el instrumento de enmienda suscrito en Tokio, Japón 1994. Para ejercer esos servicios alternativos del país de origen se recolecta tráfico de particulares en un punto de la red mediante la marcación de números especiales, por lo general sin tasación local (toll free) para que el solicitante de la llamada pueda acceder a un equipo interactivo de respuesta de voz denominado IAD (Internet Access Device), el cual mediante un menú orienta al solicitando de la llamada para que pueda seleccionar el idioma y le permite ingresar, a través del teclado del aparato telefónico los números claves impresos en cada una de las tarjetas, con ese número la plataforma verifica la validez y el saldo disponible, si cumple estos requisitos lo invita a marcar el código de país, código de área si los hubiera en el país llamado y finalmente el número al cual desea llamar. La plataforma se interconecta con redes internacionales, pudiendo ser estas líneas dedicadas, virtuales u otras tecnologías de transporte, pero principalmente se utiliza la red de Internet de banda ancha. El sistema IAD convierte la voz proveniente de la red pública en paquetes de datos sobre un protocolo de Internet, para ser transportada al país de destino hacia otro IAD distante instalado en el país de destino de la llamada, que desempaqueta los datos y la voz es conmutada hacia la red telefónica nacional del país de destino utilizando números telefónicos de la red pública local para completar la llamada al número que previamente designó el solicitante de la llamada..... Cuando se utilizan redes alternativas y números telefónicos de la red nacional para completar llamadas fraudulentas, se podrían dar dos posible alternativas, una que aparezca el número local que intermedió en la comunicación y otra si la persona que contrató los servicios para completar las llamadas de by pass, solicita la categoría de no identificación de llamadas aparece en la pantalla del número "llamada ID bloqueada, número privado, anónimo o no disponible". Bajo ese procedimiento y parámetros, el ICE al realizar una auditoria al azar, detectó en los números asignados a la empresa actora (22092700, 22936104, 22935804 y 22936105 llamadas que no pasaron por las centrales del ICE, sino a través de los servicios telefónicos indicados asignados a la empresa accionante, por líneas paralelas, que corresponde a la actividad denominada by pass, sin que tales redes o números telefónicos, estén autorizados por ley, o contractualmente con los permisos correspondientes para tales actividades. La entidad demandada procedió a la revisión de los servicios asignados a ese cliente -la aquí actora-, confirmándose según la nota número 5892-002-2009 del 25 de enero de los personeros de la oficina de Subproceso Análisis y Control de fraudes del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad que durante los meses de diciembre 2009 a enero del 2010, se reflejaban en total más de trescientos mil minutos entre los números telefónicos mencionados líneas arriba; ésta es la medida con la que la central telefónica mide el tiempo de conversaciones, considerándose excesivo comparándolo con el total de clientes que tiene el Sistema Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (S.N.T) que tenía en ese momento un consumo promedio de 18.957,20 minutos mensuales. Confirmándose que dichos números tenían 1, 67 veces más que el consumo promedio para el caso de estos números ubicando claramente en la actividad de by pass o más bien demostrándose técnicamente que la empresa actora había realizado por medio de los números asignados y de los cuales es responsable en cuanto a su uso, la actividad del by pass, la cual conforme lo dispone el artículo 55 del Reglamento General de Servicios de Telecomunicaciones no se encuentra permitida en nuestro país, amén del cumplimiento que deben realizar todos los usuarios de dichos servicios conforme lo disponen y ordenan los Convenios Internacionales (Convenio de la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones Ginebra 1992 y Convenio de la Unión de 1994 ratificados según Ley 8100), parte del ordenamiento jurídico administrativo según lo ordenado por el numeral 6 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Lo anterior, quedó constando en la resolución No. 6000-687-2010 de 12 horas del 09 de marzo del 2010 de la Subgerencia del Sector Telecomunicaciones del ICE en la que se ratificó que mediante el informe transcrito en nota No 5892-137-2010 logro determinarse que a través de los servicios prestados por Tentaciones de Costa Rica SA ingresó trafico de " by pass" según consta en las pruebas de calidad de la auditoria y que mediante investigaciones realizadas en los servicios contratos por Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A., en los meses de diciembre 2009 a enero del 2010, para esos cuatro números telefónicos se registro un consumo global excesivo, que además existía importación de tráfico internacional de llamadas ingresando a Costa Rica por medio del método by pass y que utiliza la infraestructura de redes de servicios telefónicos asignados a la empresa Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A. Agregado a ello, se tiene que los canales autorizados para cursar el tráfico de telecomunicaciones son aquellos previamente establecidos y que solo es posible concesionar por medio del ICE o RACSA, y claro está, Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A., no se registra como empresa concesionaria de tales servicios, hecho que agrava más la situación, al establecerse la creación de canales marginales o rutas alternas al margen de la legislación de la materia.

V.-La empresa actora manifiesta que no le ha sido probada tal actividad, que tenía un sistema de seguridad que le liberan de la responsabilidad que se les achaca, y que es producto de un presunto "hackeo", la concurrencia de llamadas; esta situación resulta poco cierta, por cuanto no se ha aportado prueba en autos que acredite en forma certera que el sistema telefónico no fue utilizado por la actora para la actividad de "by pass", tampoco que se haya presentado el presunto hackeo, además, la empresa actora afectada con el volumen de llamadas, de ser cierta la intervención de terceros, debió haber procedido a efectuar el reclamo respectivo por imposibilidad de tránsito de llamadas desde sus oficinas, hacia el exterior o a la inversa, situación que la lógica y la razón permiten establecer como existentes cuando se da uso de terceros de las líneas telefónicas, que impiden el disfrute adecuado del servicio máxime en relación con sus actividades turísticas. No está demás, que la conducta de tercero como eximente de responsabilidad no basta con argumentarla sino que debe ser probada conforme con los artículos 317 del Código Procesal Civil y 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo lo que en el caso concreto no ocurre. El by pass se encuentra prohibido tanto en normas internacionales a saber el Reglamento General de Servicio de Telecomunicaciones y en cuanto a la concesión de dichos servicios, ésta solo puede ser otorgada conforme lo dispone el artículo 121 inciso 14 de la Constitución Política, y en esta situación no ha demostrado encontrarse la parte actora; el hecho del uso abusivo por parte de un tercero no fue probado en autos y debe recordar la representación de la empresa actora, que dichos servicios telefónicos se encuentran a su nombre y es precisamente su representada la llamada a responsabilidad por la actividad que presta, sin que pueda por ello alegarse que no es posible determinar que fuera un sujeto de la empresa Tentaciones de Costa Rica S.A quién realizará el fraude, pero si que el mismo se realizó con ocasión del servicio que presta y en ese tanto la responsabilidad al ser el titular del derecho le es inherente. Empero, contrario a tal alegato, este Tribunal, a partir de las pruebas obrantes en autos, concluye la existencia de by pass. De los informes técnicos que constan en el expediente, así como de la testimonial evacuada en el juicio oral, se explica de manera detallada el procedimiento para detectar ese tipo de actividad irregular que realizó la empresa TENTACIONES DE COSTA RICA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, prueba que además no fue cuestionada o desvirtuada técnicamente por la actora, como correspondía ante la carga que el impone el numeral 317 del Código Procesal Civil, pues ésta se limitó a negar su existencia, sin aportar contraprueba que haga dudar a este Tribunal de la veracidad y aplicabilidad de los informes aportados. Si bien se rinde informe sobre los actos de seguridad a nivel telemático aplicados por la empresa actora a lo interno de su organización, la prueba no explica el excesivo tránsito de llamadas, ni se demuestra imposibilidad de uso de esas líneas, situaciones ambas que surgen ante el uso ilegal por terceros de líneas asignadas a usuarios. La actora afirma que no se logró ubicar materialmente el desarrollo de la actividad, sin embargo, pierde de vista el representante legal de la actora que, precisamente el tipo de acciones realizadas de manera irregular que originan este proceso, por su naturaleza tecnológica y por las propias limitaciones de ingreso a instalaciones privadas sin previo aviso por los funcionarios del ICE, no pueden ser fácilmente ubicadas. Pero esa misma circunstancia no ocurre tratándose de los mecanismos de detección tecnológica que finalmente si permitieron concluir, sin error alguno demostrado, la canalización de tráfico internacional entrante. En efecto, según quedó claramente justificado en el expediente administrativo, el ICE puede auditar técnicamente el manejo de las líneas telefónicas sin necesidad de alertar a quienes realizan la actividad irregular, evitando así su suspensión temporal para ocultar tal actuar anómalo. De tal suerte que la actividad de by pass fue plenamente demostrada a través de las auditorías técnicas realizadas y reforzado ese planteamiento durante la audiencia de juicio oral. Ante la contundencia de las mismas, la sociedad actora se limitó a realizar oposiciones y afirmaciones carentes de sustento probatorio, lo que las transmuta en infértiles y que para esta Cámara resultan además ilógicas a la luz de la declaración del señor gerente general de la empresa actora quien ni siquiera recuerda con certeza si las líneas suspendidas se encontraban o no en uso al momento en que se dio por terminado el contrato de interés. Con lo cuestionado son inexistentes y, por el contrario, el ICE contaba con causa justa para resolver el contrato suscrito entre actora y demandado, y optar por la suspensión del servicio en forma inmediata como lo hizo, pues, al realizar TENTACIONES DE COSTA RICA, una actividad de by pass, transgredió el numeral 55 del Decreto Ejecutivo No 30110-MP-G-Meic, Reglamento General de Servicios de Telecomunicaciones, incisos d y e -que por cierto la actora indicó conocer al realizar la convención e incorporó como parte del contrato-, en específico, los incisos d y e en los que se estipula:"Se prohíbe al cliente o usuario del SNT, que no cuente con la concesión otorgada por el Estado Costarricense, lo siguiente: d. Variar en cualquier forma el destino o fin del servicio contratado con el Operador. e. Utilizar los servicios públicos de Telecomunicaciones Internacionales en competencia con el operador, sea mediante la utilización de aparatos automáticos que puedan contestar u originar llamadas, o de cualquier otro método de prolongación del circuito a otros destinos, a través de línea directa, línea física, línea virtual u otro que cause el uso indebido de la infraestructura de telecomunicaciones del Operador. "Y es que ciertamente, como lo establece el numeral 121 inciso 14 de la Carta Magna, la actora no probó contar con la autorización legal que allí se indica para disponer, de la forma en que lo hizo, de los servicios de telecomunicación, planteamiento que ha sido desarrollado y reiterado por la Sala Constitucional en diversas sentencias y cuenta con sustento normativo en la Ley de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, por ejemplo, arts 38. c) donde se sanciona de manera expresa "el uso fraudulento de bienes y servicios públicos para evadir el pago regulado" y d) que sanciona la prestación no autorizada de un servicio público, todo lo que confirma la actividad de by pass desplegada por la actora, que justifica legalmente lo dispuesto mediante la resolución que se pretende anular.

VI.- Reclama la actora que la demandada no puede trasladar a ella sus pérdidas por el tráfico ilegítimo de comunicaciones internacionales, sin embargo el medio a través del cual se efectuó ese tráfico fueron las líneas telefónicas en uso de la actora, por lo que de haberse desarrollado en forma legítima, a través de las plataformas legalmente autorizadas, generarían un ingreso adicional al ente demandado, que nunca llega a su poder dada la actividad que esta Cámara ha tenido por cierta en cuanto a "by pass"; el contrato de servicio da la posibilidad legal a la parte demandada de que los montos dejados de percibir por acto ilegal o fraudulento contra quien se tenga como actor de esas acciones ilegítimas es procedente, en este caso, a través del procedimiento administrativo, se tuvo por cierto el uso indebido de las líneas, decisión que mantiene esta Cámara, por lo que no se habla aquí de transferencia de pérdidas por causas ajenas al contrato, al contrario se trata de pérdidas por la violación a esos límites contractuales, siendo así la retribución apropiada para el perjuicio causada con la actividad, consistente en carencia de ingreso de recursos, por consiguiente ostenta el ente demandado el derecho de declarar administrativamente el deber de la entidad actora de pagar lo dejado de percibir como consecuencia de ese incumplimiento contractual. Considera adecuado en ese aspecto este Tribunal señalar que se ubica prudencia a la hora de establecer eventuales daños, al utilizarse un valor razonable y bajo.

VII.- Reclama asimismo que el ICE incurrió en una conducta omisiva, al no haber procedido desde la primera llamada internacional al bloqueo de los números de interés, sin embargo el hecho de que el ente demandado esperara para continuar con la verificación de los datos en el tiempo no constituye conducta omisiva, por el contrario estiman los firmantes, que la conducta administrativa generada para el presente caso, tuvo como fin una verificación exhaustiva de presuntos hechos generadores de un ilícito, por lo que si bien la entidad pudo actuar con la prontitud deseada por la actora, lo cierto es que la verificación efectuada, y tiempo tomado al efecto, permitió delimitar en forma clara la responsabilidad de la entidad demandada en cuanto a los hechos investigados administrativamente, no se libera con ello el acto fraudulento por que el ente debe garantizarse el cumplimiento de todas las etapas del procedimiento previo a esa suspensión del servicio. Asimismo, el Tribunal ubica una incoherencia en el razonamiento de la actora quien dedica la mayor parte de sus argumentos a exoner la ilegalidad del corte en el servicio (al extremo de reclamar responsabilidad por esa conducta), mas, con respecto a los pagos por los servicios realizados ilegalmente hace ver que el corte debió realizarse de manera más expedita.

VIII.- Por consiguiente, no existe a criterio de quienes resuelven la nulidad absoluta reprochada de la cláusula contractual, no existe sanción imponible a la administración por la forma utilizada en el procedimiento administrativo para la verificación de los hechos investigados, y afectación al servicio pactado, se respetaron las garantías propias de la relación contractual, y debida comunicación de las decisiones resolutorias en este contrato, se dieron a criterio de esta Cámara acciones tendientes al cumplimiento del procedimiento administrativo en forma acorde a las potestades de la entidad demandada de forma que la ejecución de sus resoluciones administrativas se encuentran dictadas al amparo del ordenamiento jurídico ante las circunstancias y hechos probados en cuanto al contrato entre la entidad actora y demandada de forma que el proceder de la demandada y prueba recabada a fines de este proceso, imponen el rechazo de las pretensiones de la demanda, para lo cual debe acogerse la falta de Derecho invocada por la parte demandada, al quedar acreditado que no le asiste ASIDERO jurídico al reclamo presentado. De igual forma, al ser dichos reclamos la base de una eventual condenatoria en daños y perjuicios, al quedar la misma carente de sustento y además no haberse probado la existencia de detrimento económico imputable al demandado, también debe rechazarse la pretensión planteada sobre este extremo, corriendo igual suerte la condenatoria en costas.¨