← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00044-2016 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V · 2016
OutcomeResultado
The Tribunal dismissed the damages claim because the plaintiffs did not prove wrongful harm nor seek annulment of the challenged administrative acts.El Tribunal rechazó la demanda indemnizatoria porque los actores no demostraron daño antijurídico ni solicitaron la nulidad de los actos administrativos impugnados.
SummaryResumen
The Fifth Section of the Contentious Administrative Tribunal ruled on a damages claim brought by the non-sport fishing sector against ARESEP. The plaintiffs alleged that between November 2002 and October 2013, ARESEP improperly eliminated the preferential fuel price for the fishing fleet, based on the mistaken assumption that Law 7593 tacitly repealed Article 45 of Law 7384, and equated the ex-plant price with that of end consumers by adding unauthorized investment and administrative costs. The Tribunal found that ARESEP indeed acted on a false premise and violated the law by adding unpermitted cost items to the ex-plant price, and even failed to adjust its criteria after a 2003 internal legal opinion confirmed Article 45 remained in force and after executive decrees regulated it. However, it dismissed the claim because the plaintiffs did not seek annulment of the challenged administrative acts and, crucially, did not provide suitable technical evidence proving that the price equalization caused actual wrongful harm—that the fuel ceased to be competitive against the international market, which was the sole interest protected by the norm. Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code on the burden of proof was applied.La Sección V del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo resolvió una demanda de indemnización interpuesta por el sector pesquero no deportivo contra la ARESEP. Los actores alegaban que entre noviembre de 2002 y octubre de 2013, la ARESEP eliminó indebidamente el precio preferencial del combustible para la flota pesquera, basándose en la errónea suposición de que la Ley 7593 derogó tácitamente el artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, y equiparó el precio plantel al de los consumidores finales, incorporando costos de inversión y administración no autorizados. El Tribunal determinó que, efectivamente, la ARESEP actuó bajo una premisa falsa y contravino la ley al añadir rubros no contemplados en la fijación del precio plantel, e incluso omitió ajustar su criterio tras un dictamen jurídico interno de 2003 que confirmó la vigencia del artículo 45 y ante decretos ejecutivos que lo reglamentaron. No obstante, rechazó la demanda porque los actores no solicitaron la nulidad de los actos administrativos impugnados y, crucialmente, no presentaron prueba técnica idónea que demostrara que la equiparación de precios causó un daño antijurídico real, esto es, que el combustible dejó de ser competitivo respecto al mercado internacional, único fin tutelado por la norma. Se aplicó el artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil sobre la carga de la prueba.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Based on the above, this Tribunal has held it demonstrated that, founded on the false premise of the repeal of Article 45 of Law 7384, Law Creating the Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture of March 29, 1994, ARESEP equated the ex-plant price of fuel for fishermen (excluding the respective tax) with that of any other final consumer, and incorporated in this concept a series of items not originally contemplated in the price settings prior to administrative acts resolutions 2774-2002 of eight a.m. on September 26, 2002, and RRG-2821-2002 of 9:30 a.m. on October 24, 2002. Consequently, it is evident that there was partial non-compliance with said article, since the setting of the ex-plant price used costs other than those expressly established in Law 7384. [...] However, it is not appropriate to grant the claim, since the claimant, on the one hand, did not request the annulment of the respective administrative acts, and on the other, the claimant's representation did not prove that the changes in the items to be considered in the fuel price for fishermen caused that price to cease to be competitive with the international market, as expressly established by the norm, in addition to the lack of proof of the alleged harm.De conformidad con lo anterior, este Tribunal ha tenido por demostrado que, fundada en la premisa falsa de la derogatoria del artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 29 de marzo de 1994, la ARESEP procedió a equiparar el precio plantel de los pescadores (excluyendo el respectivo impuesto) con el de cualquier otro consumidor final, e incorporando en este concepto una serie de rubros no contemplados originalmente en las fijaciones anteriores a los actos administrativos de resoluciones 2774-2002 de las ocho horas del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos y RRG-2821-2002 de 9:30 horas de 24 de octubre de 2002. Con lo anterior, es evidente que se incumplió parcialmente con lo dispuesto en el indicado artículo, dado que se empleó en la fijación del precio plantel otros costos diferentes a los establecidos expresamente en la Ley 7384. [...] No obstante, no resulta procedente acoger la demanda, en tanto que la parte actora, por una parte no pidió la nulidad de los respectivos actos administrativos y por otra, la representación del actor no probó que con los cambios en los rubros a considerar en el precio de los combustibles a los pescadores, el precio de aquellos haya dejado de ser competitivo con el mercado internacional, tal y como lo establece expresamente la norma, además de la falta de prueba del daño invocado.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Cuando la norma menciona el precio FOB plantel no puede analizarse descontextualizada del resto de la norma que indica que el precio a fijar será 'basado en el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior y considerando el costo C.I.F. refinería, así como los costos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en planteles...', sin que se mencione otros costos integrados al precio posteriormente por mera interpretación de la ARESEP."
"When the norm mentions the FOB plant price, it cannot be analyzed out of context from the rest of the norm which indicates that the price to be set will be 'based on the average import cost of the previous month and considering the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as pipeline distribution and plant distribution costs...', without mentioning other costs subsequently integrated into the price merely through ARESEP's interpretation."
Considerando sobre la interpretación del artículo 45
"Cuando la norma menciona el precio FOB plantel no puede analizarse descontextualizada del resto de la norma que indica que el precio a fijar será 'basado en el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior y considerando el costo C.I.F. refinería, así como los costos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en planteles...', sin que se mencione otros costos integrados al precio posteriormente por mera interpretación de la ARESEP."
Considerando sobre la interpretación del artículo 45
"...no resulta procedente acoger la demanda, en tanto que la parte actora, por una parte no pidió la nulidad de los respectivos actos administrativos y por otra, la representación del actor no probó que con los cambios en los rubros a considerar en el precio de los combustibles a los pescadores, el precio de aquellos haya dejado de ser competitivo con el mercado internacional..."
"...it is not appropriate to grant the claim, since the claimant, on the one hand, did not request the annulment of the respective administrative acts, and on the other, the claimant's representation did not prove that the changes in the items to be considered in the fuel price for fishermen caused that price to cease to be competitive with the international market..."
Conclusión sobre la improcedencia de la demanda
"...no resulta procedente acoger la demanda, en tanto que la parte actora, por una parte no pidió la nulidad de los respectivos actos administrativos y por otra, la representación del actor no probó que con los cambios en los rubros a considerar en el precio de los combustibles a los pescadores, el precio de aquellos haya dejado de ser competitivo con el mercado internacional..."
Conclusión sobre la improcedencia de la demanda
"...la mera invocación de la parte no es suficiente, si no existe un sólido fundamento probatorio que sirva de demostración de los hechos o defensas que se alegan. En razón de que la parte solicita el análisis de legalidad, no para efectos de extraer las conductas del mundo jurídico, sino exclusivamente con fines indemnizatorios, le correspondía al actor demostrar que más allá de la existencia o no de vicios en la conducta administrativa, ésta tuvo una consecuencia antijurídica que podría ser provocadora de efectos dañosos en su esfera jurídica."
"...the mere assertion of a party is not sufficient, if there is no solid evidentiary basis serving to demonstrate the facts or defenses alleged. Given that the party seeks a legality review, not to remove conducts from the legal world, but exclusively for compensatory purposes, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to demonstrate that beyond the existence or not of defects in the administrative conduct, it had an unlawful consequence that could cause harmful effects in its legal sphere."
Razonamiento sobre la carga de la prueba
"...la mera invocación de la parte no es suficiente, si no existe un sólido fundamento probatorio que sirva de demostración de los hechos o defensas que se alegan. En razón de que la parte solicita el análisis de legalidad, no para efectos de extraer las conductas del mundo jurídico, sino exclusivamente con fines indemnizatorios, le correspondía al actor demostrar que más allá de la existencia o no de vicios en la conducta administrativa, ésta tuvo una consecuencia antijurídica que podría ser provocadora de efectos dañosos en su esfera jurídica."
Razonamiento sobre la carga de la prueba
Full documentDocumento completo
“VI.III On the merits: At the core, the plaintiff in its lawsuit alleges that ARESEP, through administrative resolution No. 2774-2002, at 8:00 a.m., on September 26, 2002, established in considerando 4, that Law No. 7593 tacitly repealed article 45 of the INCOPESCA law, and therefore the rates and prices for this public service (fuel supply to fishermen) must be determined in accordance with the law of the regulatory authority, such that, in its rate structure, not only the referenced investment cost, but all those costs necessary for the provision of the public service, will be incorporated. Consequently, the defendant party, protected by that resolution, subsequently proceeded to issue resolution No. RRG-2821, at 9:30 a.m., on October 24, 2002, whereby the defendant entity materialized the elimination of the “preferential price,” in favor of the national non-sport fishing fleet, in what relates to the acquisition of fuel. Consequently, as of November 4, 2002, ARESEP invariably and persistently proceeded to set the same price for fuel, both for consumers in general, and equally for the non-sport fishing fleet. It indicates that faced with this factual situation, the non-sport fishing sector found itself in the necessity of managing an “Authentic Interpretation Law,” regarding the real and effective scope of the benefit in the purchase of fuel, which materialized through Law No. 9134, of June 13, 2013, by which ARESEP was forced to change its price-setting criteria for the fisherman; thus, Resolution No. RIE-084-2013 was issued, published in the Official Gazette (Gaceta) of October 1, 2013, in which a lower price is reflected, regarding the fuel acquired by the non-sport fishing fleet. Consequently, in the entire period between November 4, 2002—when the cited Resolution No. RRG-2821 entered into force—and until October 1, 2013, when Resolution No. RIE-084-2013 was implemented, the non-sport fishing sector was not granted a lower price, compared to the fuel price for the general consumer. By reason of the foregoing, it considers that ARESEP has engaged in conduct contrary to law, by being consciously, repeatedly, and persistently remiss, in granting a differentiated price to the non-sport fishing sector, throughout that entire period spanning from November 4, 2002, until October 1, 2013. The defendant party responds to said allegations by indicating that it is not true that it ignored, either before or after the entry into force of the authentic interpretation, the provisions of the articles on which the plaintiff party bases its lawsuit, given that due to the superficial drafting of the indicated articles, the manner of implementing that benefit, regarding the establishment of the applicable calculation methodology, the costs to be considered within the service provision, and other regulatory aspects, were left to the exclusive technical competence of Aresep, as specified in the final paragraphs of article 45 of Law 7384. The foregoing must be complemented by the existence of Law 7593, which imposes on it the power-duty to apply the cost-of-service principle to the rates of all regulated public services, thus, it is necessary for the financial equilibrium of the service provider, to see incorporated into its rates, certain costs, among them investment costs that guarantee the continuity, development, and sustainability of the activity. It is not true that the Regulatory Authority omitted to establish a competitive price for the national fishing fleet, since since 2002 there exists a resolution of the General Regulator that establishes the method of calculating fuel prices for that fishing fleet. According to that calculation method, such prices are set when the rack prices (precios plantel) for Recope are established, because the price for the fishing fleet—considering investments—is equivalent to the rack price (precio plantel) of RECOPE, without the single tax. Consequently, since then the item of investments has been incorporated within the calculation of the rack price, in accordance with what is stated in article 45 of Law 7384, which provides for the charging of a FOB rack price (precio FOB plantel). Subsequently, on the occasion of the authentic interpretation, the methodology, previously approved, to set the fuel price at RECOPE distribution racks and to the final consumer, was adapted to said regulation, issuing resolution RIE-084-2013 of September 24, 2013, by the Energy Intendancy. In accordance with the analysis of the evidence provided to the court record and the allegations of the parties, this Tribunal considers that the plaintiff party is incorrect, for the reasons that will be indicated below. Article 45 of Law 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, of March 29, 1994, established the following: “ARTICLE 45.- The fishing sector shall acquire from RECOPE the fuel (gasoline and diesel), for the non-sport fishing activity at a price competitive with the international price, based on the average import cost of the previous month and considering the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as the pipeline distribution costs and distribution at racks (distribución en planteles), so that the price is F.O.B. Rack (F.O.B. Plantel). That price shall be set by the Servicio Nacional de Electricidad; which must be previously requested by RECOPE, as provided in Law No. 6588 of July 30, 1981, or the Institute. The Institute shall be responsible for the administration and control of the efficient use of fuel, destined for non-sport fishing activity.” As is noted from the norm, its purpose was to establish a competitive price for the fuel that would be destined for non-sport fishing activity, establishing the F.O.B. rack (F.O.B. plantel) price as a parameter. In accordance with the prior norm, through resolution RRG-2708-2002, ARESEP established the extraordinary adjustment formula for determining prices for fuels consumed by the fishing fleet. In accordance with the foregoing, the cost structure of gasoline and diesel in said cases would comprise: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Rack cost (Costo por planteles) 4) Administrative cost. Subsequently, in accordance with resolutions RJD-013, 014 and 016-2002 of the Board of Directors of ARESEP, it was agreed that the investments of the service provider must be incorporated within the price structure of the indicated fuels. Thus, in accordance with said administrative act, the respective structure contained: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Rack cost (Costo por planteles) 4) Administrative cost 5) Investment cost. Through resolution 2774-2002 at eight o'clock on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two, ARESEP ordered the revocation of the extraordinary adjustment formula for determining the fuel prices consumed by the fishing fleet in accordance with resolution RRG-2708-2002 and to indicate to the parties that price fixings shall be carried out in accordance with articles 3, 30, and 31 of Law 7593. By reason of the foregoing, the cost structure in accordance with this act contained: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Rack cost (Costo por planteles) 4) Administrative cost 5) Investment cost 6) Service provision costs. It was thus that in practice, this resolution came to equate the rack price (precio plantel) of fuel for fishermen to that of any final consumer. Subsequently, by means of resolution RRG-2821-2002 at 9:30 a.m. on October 24, 2002, a fuel price for fishermen was contemplated, in accordance with resolution 2772-2002, at rack price, without taxes. It is necessary to indicate that what is provided in the indicated resolution 2772-2002 starts from the presumption that the provisions of the Ley de Creación de la Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos, Law number 7593, repealed the indicated article 45 of Law 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, of March 29, 1994, as the referenced administrative conduct expressly indicates. Notwithstanding the foregoing, through an opinion from the Specialized Legal Directorate of ARESEP dated October 21, 2003, the General Regulator was informed that article 45 of Law 7384 is in force and must be applied above the lower-ranking norms that contradict it. However, this did not result in modifying the price fixing indicated above, failing to adapt it to the consideration that said norm was in force and clearly established that the FOB Rack price (precio FOB Plantel), should exclusively take into consideration the average import cost of the previous month of the fuel and the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as the pipeline distribution costs and distribution at racks (planteles). The foregoing was reaffirmed subsequently, with article 123 of Law 8436, Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, of April 25, 2005, providing as follows: “Article 123.—Exempt the national fishing fleet, except that dedicated to sport fishing, from all types of national taxes for the importation of vessels, spare parts, motors, navigation and fishing implements, and their respective accessories. In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384, of March 16, 1994, RECOPE shall sell fuel (gasoline, regular and diesel) to the national fishing fleet, except for sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the international price.” From the text of this last norm, it is evident that it reiterates the need for the price that is set to be competitive with the international fuel price, although it does not establish the parameter indicated ut supra. It is necessary to indicate that through Executive Decree (decreto ejecutivo) 31299-MAG-MINAE, said article 45 was regulated in the following sense: “Article 1st-In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384 of March 16, 1994, RECOPE shall sell fuel (regular gasoline and diesel), to the National Fishing Fleet, except for sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the international price. Article 2nd—For the effects of the application of the present Regulation, the following definitions are established: a) PCFPi = It is the Rack Sale Price per Liter of Fuel (regular gasoline or diesel), consumed by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. b) CIFRi = It is the monthly cost CIF Refinery, per Liter of Fuel, which includes the F.O.B. costs (free on board), as well as the insurance and transport of the fuel (regular gasoline and diesel), placed at the National Unloading Port. It should be interpreted that within this concept, its F.O.B. component, is equal to the one RECOPE used as an average in its last extraordinary adjustment, for each of the fuels cited above. c) COif = Annual cost per liter transferred by Pipeline calculated based on the existing information in the accounting closing of the immediately preceding fiscal period, in accordance with the existing information in the last Available Financial Statement, considering as a denominator, the proportional volume of fuels transferred by Pipeline, destined for the consumption of the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. The amount obtained shall be updated with the estimated inflation for the following period. d) CPif = Annual cost per liter sold at Racks calculated based on the existing information in the accounting closing of the immediately preceding Fiscal Period, in accordance with the existing information in the last Available Financial Statement, considering as a denominator, the proportional volume of fuel sold at Racks, during the corresponding period, destined for the consumption of the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. The amount obtained shall be updated by the inflation estimated for the following period. e) International Fuel Price: It shall be determined based on the average of the price that RECOPE uses as a reference for the fuels (gasoline, diesel), which it imports. f) Fuel for Fishing: Covers only the regular gasoline variety and diesel. Article 3rd-The setting of the price of fuels consumed by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet shall be established by exclusively taking into account the following cost structure: PCFPi = CIFRi + COif + CPif For: i = Regular Gasoline, Diesel f = Fixed until the conclusion of the next review. Article 4th- In the determination of the price of fuels destined for the consumption of the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet, the amounts corresponding to administration marketing margins or others of a similar nature, shall not be considered, in such a way that the objective that the set price is competitive with international prices of the markets that RECOPE uses as a reference in the acquisition of fuels is fulfilled. Article 5th-The price requests may be made by RECOPE or INCOPESCA or by the Regulatory Entity ex officio, since the price variations for the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet shall be made following the same Ordinary and Extraordinary variations requested by RECOPE.” (emphasis is ours). Despite the foregoing, there is no evidence that ARESEP modified the price fixing made in resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two regarding the incorporation of administration expenses of RECOPE in the fixing of the rack price (precio plantel) of fuel. Said decree was repealed by Executive Decree (decreto ejecutivo) 32527-MAG of June 3, 2005, which provided: “Article 1st-In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384 of March 16, 1994 and article 123 second paragraph of Law No. 8436 of March 1st, 2005, RECOPE shall sell fuel (regular gasoline and diesel) to the National Fishing Fleet, except for sport fishing activity, at a competitive price with the international price. Article 2nd-The price competitive with the international price, for the sale of the fuel mentioned in the previous article, shall be comprised within the rate fixing tariff that is carried out, by the application of the single fuel tax exemption and the non-incorporation within said price, of the amounts corresponding to administration expenses, asset depreciation, port charges and investment. Article 3rd-The resulting difference in the determination of the price competitive with the international price, between the amount corresponding by the application of the single fuel tax exemption and the items not incorporated in article second, shall be recognized by the State to the Non-Sport National Fishing Sector starting from the "Agreement for addressing critical issues of the National Fishing Sector" signed on January 29, 2008. For this purpose, the Ministry of Finance shall incorporate into the national budget the amount corresponding to the subsidy established in Article Second and shall transfer it to the Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA), through the respective transfer. The amount of the subsidy per liter of regular gasoline or diesel fuel shall be determined by INCOPESCA, which, by reason of its competences, shall be in charge of its allocation to each benefited fisherman, its distribution and control, an obligation to render a semi-annual report to the cited ministry, according to the regulations in force. Article 4th-The amount corresponding to the items exempted in Article Second shall be determined based on the accounting records of RECOPE for the immediately preceding closed fiscal period. For this purpose and in relation to said period, RECOPE shall provide INCOPESCA the required annual accounting information for the quantification of the subsidy per liter: the indicated financial statements, the total sales of RECOPE in volume, the administrative and the port charges.” (emphasis is ours). As is noted, it established the need for fixing prices for fishermen’s fuel without taking into consideration administration body, maintaining the internal administrative cost of RECOPE. It is even necessary to indicate that through resolution RRG-9233-2008 at ten hours twenty minutes on November eleventh, two thousand eight, again based on the validity of article 45 of Law 7384, a rack price (precio plantel) without tax is set for fuel prices for non-sport fishing equal to that of the distributor for the final consumer at service stations. [...]
Also, it is correct when it indicates that the MT and MC factors are not included in the rack price of Recope, given that they correspond to transportation to service stations and commercialization at them. For the foregoing reason, it must be noted that the rack price excludes these factors, yet it must be taken into consideration that as indicated, the said rack price of fuels for fishermen does not differ from that indicated for other final consumers, except in what corresponds to the exemption from charging the respective tax on fuels, in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Simplification and Efficiency Law (Ley de Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributaria). Thus, by way of example, the referenced resolution RRG-9233-2008 at ten hours twenty minutes on November eleventh, two thousand eight, sets equal prices for the fuel at rack without tax for the national fishing fleet and for the fuel distributor to consumer (see folio 36 of the resolution and 191 of the judicial file). No modification of said situation appears until what is provided in the single article of Law No. 9134 of June 6, 2013, where the indicated article 45 was authentically interpreted, defining with greater precision the components that could be taken into consideration in setting the prices of fuel for fishermen, in the following manner: “... the expression “price competitive for fuel at the international level”, contained in both norms, which the national non-sport fishing fleet shall receive, is based on the fact that the Costa Rican fishing sector shall acquire from the Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo (Recope), or from the entity legally authorized for the importation of hydrocarbons into the country, the fuel, finished product (gasoline and diesel), at a price that shall comprise only the following items: a) Value of the product cost (refined product: purchase invoice amount. Non- refined product: refining cost in Costa Rica). b) The freight to the port of destination in Costa Rica. c) The insurance corresponding to the fuel. d) The cost for transfer of the final product, within the national territory, to the distribution point. e) The storage and pumping cost for the rack, where the sale is made. These values shall be set based on the average import cost of the previous month, or the latest similar information available. No general price calculation model may cover the fuel destined for the national non-sport fishing sector, therefore the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos (Aresep) must exclude any other item or component considered in the setting of the common price for these fuels. INCOPESCA shall be in charge of the administration and control of the efficient use of fuel destined for non-sport fishing activity...” In accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal has held it as proven that, based on the false premise of the repeal of article 45 of Law 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, of March 29, 1994, ARESEP proceeded to equate the rack price (precio plantel) of fishermen (excluding the respective tax) with that of any other final consumer, and incorporating into this concept a series of items not originally contemplated in the fixings prior to the administrative acts of resolutions 2774-2002 at eight o'clock on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two and RRG-2821-2002 at 9:30 a.m. on October 24, 2002. With the foregoing, it is evident that what was provided in the indicated article was partially breached, given that in the setting of the rack price, other costs different from those Law 7384 were used. Consequently, the two advantages that non-artisanal fishermen obtained were the following: a) acquisition of the product at rack price, without charging transport costs outside the rack and marketing (with the caveat that as has been indicated, the referred rack price was progressively loaded with costs originally not contemplated) and b) the exemption from payment of the single tax on fuels. However, it is not appropriate to accept the lawsuit, insofar as the plaintiff party, on one hand, did not request the nullity of the respective administrative acts and, on the other, the representative of the plaintiff did not prove that with the changes in the items to consider in the price of fuels for fishermen, the price of those had ceased to be competitive with the international market, just as the norm expressly establishes, in addition to the lack of proof of the damage invoked, as will be indicated later. Even if, as has been indicated, the different mentioned ARESEP resolutions had the consequence of equating the rack price of fishermen with that of any final consumer (less the respective tax), this does not mean per se, that it had as a consequence, an incidence such that it implied that the national rack price had ceased to possess competitiveness with the international market, taking into consideration additionally that in the case of fuels for fishermen they did not have to pay the single fuel tax, which logically, had additional incidence on the national price vis-à-vis the exterior. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff party to demonstrate this aspect through the presentation of suitable technical evidence, given that this Tribunal cannot start from mere presumptions regarding the consequences of the mentioned acts with respect to competitiveness with international prices, insofar as we are in the presence of rack prices (which do not have incorporated the costs for transport to service stations and commercialization at these) and that furthermore do not include the payment of the respective tax. In accordance with the considerations made previously, article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code is applied, insofar as it provides: “The burden of proof rests: 1) With the person who formulates a claim, regarding the affirmative statements of the facts constituting their right. 2) With the person who opposes a claim, regarding the affirmative statements of facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the right of the plaintiff.” On the burden of proof, it has been said on some other occasion, that: “..., in order to what is provided in article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code: “(...) The burden of proof does not suppose, then, any right of the adversary, but rather an imperative of the own interest of each litigant; it is a circumstance of risk consisting in the fact that whoever does not prove the facts that they have to prove, loses the lawsuit. This burden can be lifted, by proving, that is to say, by accrediting the truth of the facts that the Law indicates. And this does not create, evidently, a right in the adversary, as if a personal legal situation pertaining to each party; the burden of not lending belief to the affirmations that it was necessary to prove and were not proven… it is the same not to prove as not to exist (…)”. (Vote number 262 at nine hours forty minutes on June seventeenth, nineteen ninety-four, of the Second Civil Superior Tribunal, First Section). In accordance with the foregoing, the mere invocation by the party is not sufficient, if there does not exist a solid probative foundation that serves to demonstrate the alleged facts or defenses. By reason that the party requests the legality analysis, not for the purposes of removing the conducts from the legal world, but exclusively for compensatory purposes, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that beyond the existence or not of defects in the administrative conduct, this had an unlawful consequence that could be productive of damaging effects in its legal sphere. However, far from this, the court record does not show that the existence of negative changes in the national competitiveness with respect to international fuel prices has been demonstrated, nor the incidence of the ARESEP decisions in that sense, which may be identifiable, differentiable, and individualizable from other internal and external situations to the country that could have had an incidence on an eventual loss of the possibility to compete of our national fishermen. As the plaintiff party well indicates, the purpose of the norm was to protect the competitiveness of national fishermen vis-à-vis the international market, so that it did not demonstrate that in the case under analysis, a distortion of the rack prices of the country occurred such that it had an impact on said objective. Additionally, this Tribunal considers it necessary to refer to the allegation of ARESEP regarding the fact that its actions were taken in exercise of its competences. In this sense, even if it is clear that the Authority Regulating Public Services possesses sufficient competences to impose upon the concessionaires of the public service the rules that must be followed for the fixing of the tariff or the tariff adjustment, so that the choice of the price and tariff-setting methodology is a technical issue, and consequently, it can use the methodologies that are compatible with the cost-of-service principle established in article 3 of the Ley de Creación de la ARESEP, it must be remembered that it can exercise its regulatory competences but within the framework of the legal order without failing to apply what is provided in the Law, nor emptying the content of the respective norm. In this order of ideas, its technical discretion must be exercised within the framework of the legal order and if said order establishes limits, it is not appropriate that via interpretation a specific provision be considered inapplicable or that items not contemplated in a concrete law be incorporated into the prices, when the legislator has opted to define the scopes of the components of a given price (as happened in the case of the administrative act of resolution 2774-2002 at eight hours on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two. Even if ARESEP sets its tariffs in accordance with the cost-of-service principle, the certain fact is that there was a valid, effective, and in-force norm, which established a determined fixing method, in line with the legal interests that the legislator at that time decided to protect, and it is not appropriate that by administrative act, said exceptional situation foreseen by the legal order be ignored. When the norm mentions the FOB rack price, it cannot be analyzed decontextualized from the rest of the norm, which indicates that the price to set shall be “based on the average import cost of the previous month and considering the C.I.F. cost.
…refinery, as well as the costs of distribution by pipeline and distribution at terminals…", without mentioning other costs integrated into the price later by mere interpretation of ARESEP. In any case, as has been indicated, the corresponding administrative conducts have not been challenged and with respect to their consequences, as has been said and will be further explored below, there is not the slightest proof of a harmful result against the plaintiff […].” It is also correct when it indicates that the MT and MC factors are not included in the plantel price of Recope, given that they correspond to transportation to service stations and commercialization at those stations. For the above, it must be noted that the plantel price excludes these factors, but it should be taken into consideration that, as indicated, the indicated plantel price of fuels for fishermen *does not differ from that set for other final consumers*, except in what corresponds to the exoneration of the respective fuel tax, in accordance with what is established in the Tax Simplification and Efficiency Law. Thus, by way of example, the referenced resolution RRG-9233-2008 of ten hours and twenty minutes on the eleventh of November of two thousand eight, sets equal prices for fuel at the terminal without tax for the national fishing fleet and for the fuel distributor to the consumer (see page 36 of the resolution and 191 of the judicial file).
No modification of said situation is recorded until the provisions of the sole article of Law No. 9134 of June 6, 2013, which authentically interpreted the indicated article 45, defining with greater precision the components that could be taken into consideration in setting fuel prices for fishermen, as follows: "<i>... the expression 'competitive international fuel price,' contained in both norms, which the national non-sport fishing fleet will receive, is based on the fact that the Costa Rican fishing sector will acquire from the Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo (Recope), or from the entity legally authorized to import hydrocarbons into the country, the fuel, finished product (gasoline and diesel), at a price that will comprise only the following items: a) Product cost value (refined product: purchase invoice amount. Unrefined product: refining cost in Costa Rica). b) Freight to the port of destination in Costa Rica. c) Insurance corresponding to the fuel. d) The cost of transporting the final product, within the national territory, to the distribution point. e) The cost of storage and pumping for the facility where the sale is made. These values will be set based on the average import cost of the previous month, or the latest similar information available. No general price calculation model may cover fuel destined for the national non-sport fishing sector; therefore, the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos (Aresep) must exclude any other item or component considered in setting the common price of these fuels. Incopesca will be responsible for the administration and control of the efficient use of fuel destined for non-sport fishing activity...". </i>In accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal has deemed it proven that, based on the false premise of the derogation of article 45 of Law 7384, the Law Creating the Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, of March 29, 1994, ARESEP proceeded to equate the plant price for fishermen (excluding the respective tax) with that of any other final consumer, and incorporating into this concept a series of items not originally contemplated in the price settings prior to the administrative acts of resolutions 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two, and RRG-2821-2002 of 9:30 hours on October 24, 2002. Given the above, it is evident that the provisions of the indicated article were partially breached, given that other costs different from those expressly established in Law 7384 were used in setting the plant price. Consequently, the two advantages obtained by non-artisanal fishermen were the following: a) acquisition of the product at the plant price, without bearing transportation costs outside the plant and commercialization (with the caveat that, as indicated, the referred plant price was gradually burdened with costs originally not contemplated) and b) exemption from payment of the single fuel tax. However, it is not appropriate to grant the claim, insofar as the plaintiff, on the one hand, did not request the nullity of the respective administrative acts and, on the other, the plaintiff's representation did not prove that, with the changes in the items to be considered in fuel prices for fishermen, the price thereof ceased to be competitive with the international market, as expressly established by the norm, in addition to the lack of proof of the alleged damage, as will be indicated later. Although, as has been indicated, the different resolutions of ARESEP mentioned resulted in equating the plant price for fishermen with that of any final consumer (minus the respective tax), this does not mean per se that it resulted in an incidence such that it implied that the national plant price ceased to possess competitiveness with the international market, also taking into consideration that in the case of fuels for fishermen, the single fuel tax did not have to be paid, which logically had an additional impact on the national price compared to the exterior. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate this aspect through the presentation of suitable technical evidence, given that this Tribunal cannot rely on mere presumptions regarding the consequences of the mentioned acts concerning competitiveness with international prices, since we are in the presence of plant prices (which do not incorporate the costs of transportation to service stations and commercialization therein) and which, moreover, do not include the payment of the respective tax. In accordance with the considerations made above, article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code is applied, as it provides: "<i>The burden of proof falls upon: 1) Whoever formulates a claim, regarding the assertions of the facts constituting their right. 2) Whoever opposes a claim, regarding the assertions of facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the plaintiff's right</i>". Regarding the burden of proof, it has been stated on another occasion that:<i> "…, in order to the provisions of article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code: "(…) The burden of proof does not suppose, therefore, any right of the adversary, but rather an imperative of each litigant's own interest; it is a circumstance of risk consisting of the fact that whoever does not prove the facts they must prove, loses the case. One can relieve oneself of this burden by proving, that is, by accrediting the truth of the facts that the Law indicates. And this does not create, evidently, a right in the adversary, as if it were a personal juridical situation pertaining to each party; the encumbrance of not lending belief to the assertions that were necessary to prove and were not proven... it is the same not to prove as not to exist (…)".</i> (Vote number 262 of nine hours forty minutes on the seventeenth of June, nineteen ninety-four, of the Tribunal Superior Segundo Civil, Sección Primera). In accordance with the foregoing, the mere invocation by the party is not sufficient if there is no solid evidentiary basis that serves to demonstrate the facts or defenses alleged. Given that the party requests the analysis of legality, not for the purpose of extracting conduct from the legal world, but exclusively for indemnification purposes, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that beyond the existence or not of defects in the administrative conduct, this conduct had an unlawful (antijurídica) consequence that could be the cause of harmful effects in their legal sphere. However, far from it, the case file does not show that the existence of negative changes in national competitiveness with respect to international fuel prices was demonstrated, nor the incidence of ARESEP's decisions in that sense, that could be identifiable, differentiable, and individualizable from other internal and external situations to the country that could have influenced an eventual loss of the possibility for our national fishermen to compete. As the plaintiff rightly indicates, the purpose of the norm was to protect the competitiveness of national fishermen against the international market, and as such, they did not demonstrate that in the case under analysis, a distortion of the country's plant prices occurred such that it affected that objective. Additionally, this Tribunal deems it necessary to refer to ARESEP's allegation that its actions were taken in the exercise of its competencies. In this sense, although it is clear that the Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos possesses sufficient competencies to impose on the concessionaires of the public service the rules to be followed for setting the tariff or tariff adjustment, and that the choice of the methodology for setting prices and tariffs is a problem of a technical nature and, consequently, methodologies compatible with the principle of service at cost established in article 3 of the Law Creating ARESEP may be used, it must be remembered that it may exercise its regulatory (regulatorias) competencies but within the framework of the legal order, without disregarding the provisions of the Law, nor stripping the respective norm of its content. In this vein, its technical discretion must be exercised within the framework of the legal order, and if the legal order establishes limits, it is not appropriate that, by way of interpretation, a specific provision be considered inapplicable or that items not contemplated in a specific law be incorporated into prices, when the legislator has opted to define the scope of the components of a specific price (as happened in the case of administrative act resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on September twenty-seventh, two thousand two). Although ARESEP sets its tariffs in accordance with the principle of service at cost, the truth is that there was a valid, effective, and in-force norm that established a specific setting method, in order to the legal interests that the legislator at the time decided to protect, and it is not appropriate that, through an administrative act, this exceptional situation provided for by the legal order be ignored. When the norm mentions the FOB plant price, it cannot be analyzed out of context from the rest of the norm, which indicates that the price to be set will be "<i>based on the average import cost of the previous month and considering the C.I.F. cost at the refinery, as well as pipeline distribution costs and plant distribution...", </i>without mentioning other costs integrated into the price later by mere interpretation by ARESEP. In any case, as has been indicated, the corresponding administrative conduct has not been objected to, and with respect to its consequences, as has been stated and will be further elaborated below, there is not the slightest proof of a harmful result against the plaintiff […].” In accordance with the foregoing, the cost structure for gasoline and diesel in those cases would comprise: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Plant cost 4) Administrative cost. Subsequently, in accordance with resolutions RJD-013, 014 and 016-2002 of the Board of Directors of ARESEP, it was agreed that within the price structure of the indicated fuels, the service provider's investments had to be incorporated. Thus, in accordance with said administrative act, the respective structure contained: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Plant cost 4) Administrative cost 5) Investment cost. By means of resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on the twenty-sixth of September, two thousand two, ARESEP ordered the revocation of the extraordinary adjustment formula for determining the fuel prices consumed by the fishing fleet in accordance with resolution RRG-2708-2002 and instructed the parties that price fixings shall be carried out pursuant to articles 3, 30 and 31 of Law 7593. On account of the above, the cost structure in accordance with this act contained: 1) CIF refinery cost, 2) Pipeline cost 3) Plant cost 4) Administrative cost 5) Investment cost 6) service provision costs. It is thus that in practice, this resolution came to equate the plant price (precio plantel) of fuel for fishers to that of any final consumer. Subsequently, by means of resolution RRG-2821-2002 of 9:30 hours on 24 October 2002, a fuel price for fishers was contemplated, in accordance with resolution 2772-2002, at plant price, without taxes. It is necessary to indicate that what is ordered in the indicated resolution 2772-2002 starts from the presumption that the provisions of the Law creating the Public Services Regulatory Authority, Law Number 7593, repealed the indicated article 45 of Law 7384, Law creating the Fisheries and Aquaculture Institute, of 29 March 1994, just as the referenced administrative conduct expressly indicates. Notwithstanding the foregoing, by means of a criterion of the Specialized Legal Directorate of ARESEP dated 21 October 2003, the Reguladora General was advised that article 45 of Law 7384 is in force and must be applied over lower-ranking norms that contradict it. However, this did not result in modifying the price fixing indicated previously, omitting to adjust it to the consideration that said norm was in force and clearly established that the FOB Plant price must exclusively consider the average import cost of the previous month's fuel and the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as the distribution costs by pipeline and distribution in plants. The foregoing is reaffirmed subsequently, with article 123 of Law 8436, Fisheries and Aquaculture Law, of 25 April 2005, which ordered the following: "Article 123.—Exempt the national fishing fleet, except that dedicated to sport fishing, from all types of national taxes for the importation of vessels, spare parts, motors, navigation implements, fishing implements and their respective accessories. In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384, of 16 March 1994, RECOPE shall sell fuel (gasoline, regular and diesel) to the national fishing fleet, except for sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the international price". From the text of this last norm it is evident that it comes to reiterate the necessity that the price fixing made be competitive with the international fuel price, although the parameter indicated ut supra is not established. It is necessary to indicate that by means of Executive Decree 31299-MAG-MINAE, article 45 was regulated in the following sense: "Article 1º-In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384 of 16 March 1994, RECOPE shall sell fuel (regular gasoline and diesel), to the National Fishing Fleet, except sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the international price. Article 2º—For the purposes of the application of this Regulation, the following definitions are established: a) PCFPi = Is the Plant Sale Price per Liter of Fuel (regular gasoline or diesel), consumed by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. b) CIFRi = Is the monthly CIF Refinery cost, per Liter of Fuel, which includes the F.O.B. costs (free on board), as well as the insurance and transport of the fuel (regular gasoline and diesel), placed at the National Port of Unloading. It shall be interpreted that within this concept, its F.O.B. component is equal to that used by RECOPE as an average in its last extraordinary adjustment, for each of the aforementioned fuels. c) COif = Annual cost per liter transported by Pipeline calculated based on the information existing in the accounting close of the immediately preceding fiscal period, in accordance with the information existing in the last Available Financial Statement, considering as denominator, the proportional volume of fuels transported by Pipeline, destined for consumption by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. The amount obtained shall be updated with the estimated inflation for the following period. d) CPif = Annual cost per liter sold in Plants calculated based on the information existing in the accounting close of the immediately preceding Fiscal Period, in accordance with the information existing in the last Available Financial Statement, considering as denominator, the proportional volume of fuel sold in Plants, during the corresponding period, destined for consumption by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet. The amount obtained shall be updated by the estimated inflation for the following period. e) International Fuel Price: Shall be determined based on the average of the price that RECOPE uses as a reference for the fuels (gasoline, diesel), that it imports. f) Fuel for Fishing: Encompasses only the regular gasoline variety and diesel. Article 3º-The fixing of the price of fuels consumed by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet shall be established taking into account only the following cost structure: PCFPi = CIFRi + COif + CPif For: i = Regular Gasoline, Diesel f = Fixed until the conclusion of the next review. Article 4º- In the determination of the price of fuels destined for consumption by the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet, the amounts corresponding to administration expenses, asset depreciation, port charges, investment, marketing margins or others of a similar nature shall not be considered, in such a way that the objective that the fixed price be competitive with the international prices of the markets that RECOPE uses as a reference in the acquisition of fuels is fulfilled. Article 5º-Price requests may be made by RECOPE or INCOPESCA or by the Regulatory body ex officio, inasmuch as the price variations for the Non-Sport National Fishing Fleet shall be made following the same Ordinary and Extraordinary variations requested by RECOPE." (emphasis is ours). Despite the foregoing, there is no proof that ARESEP has modified the price fixing made in resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on the twenty-sixth of September, two thousand two regarding the incorporation of RECOPE's administration expenses in the fixing of the plant price of fuel. Said decree was repealed by Executive Decree 32527-MAG of 3 June 2005, which ordered: "Article 1º-In compliance with the provisions of article 45 of Law No. 7384 of 16 March 1994 and article 123 second paragraph of Law No. 8436 of 1 March 2005, RECOPE shall sell fuel (regular gasoline and diesel) to the National Fishing Fleet, except sport fishing activity, at a price competitive with the international price. Article 2º-The price competitive with the international price, for the sale of the fuel mentioned in the previous article, shall be comprised within the tariff fixing that is made, by the application of the exception of the single fuel tax and the non-incorporation within said price, of the amounts corresponding to administration expenses, asset depreciation, port charges and investment. Article 3º-The resulting difference in the determination of the competitive price with the international price, between the amount corresponding to the application of the exception of the single fuel tax and the items not incorporated in the second article, shall be recognized by the State to the Non-Sport National Fishing Sector starting from the "Agreement for addressing critical issues of the National Fishing Sector" signed on 29 January 2008. To this end, the Ministry of Finance shall incorporate in the national budget the amount corresponding to the subsidy established in the Second Article and shall transfer it to the Costa Rican Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INCOPESCA), through the respective transfer. The amount of the subsidy per liter of regular gasoline or diesel fuel shall be determined by INCOPESCA, which by reason of its competencies, shall be in charge of its allocation to each benefited fisher, its distribution and control, having to render a semi-annual report to the cited ministry, in accordance with the regulations in force. article 4º-The amount corresponding to the items excepted in the Second Article shall be determined based on the accounting records of RECOPE from the immediately preceding closed fiscal period. To this end and in relation to said period, RECOPE shall supply INCOPESCA with the required annual accounting information for the quantification of the subsidy per liter: the indicated financial statements, the total sales of RECOPE in volume, the administrative expenses, the asset depreciation, the executed cash investments and the port charges". (emphasis is ours). As noted, it established the necessity of fixing prices for fuel for fishers without taking into consideration administration expenses among others. However, it is not recorded in the case file that ARESEP has acted in accordance with said normative body, maintaining RECOPE's internal administrative cost. It is even necessary to indicate that by means of resolution RRG-9233-2008 of ten hours twenty minutes on the eleventh of November, two thousand eight, again based on the validity of article 45 of Law 7384, a plant price without tax is fixed for non-sport fishing fuel prices equal to that of the distributor for the final consumer at service stations. […]
Also, it is correct when it indicates that the MT and MC factors are not included in RECOPE's plant price, given that they correspond to the transport to service stations and marketing at these. Therefore, it must be noted that the plant price excludes these factors, but it must be taken into consideration that as indicated, the indicated plant price of fuels for fishers does not differ from that set for other final consumers, except in what corresponds to the exemption from charging the respective fuel tax, in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Tax Simplification and Efficiency. Thus, by way of example, the referred resolution RRG-9233-2008 of ten hours twenty minutes on the eleventh of November, two thousand eight, fixes equal prices for plant fuel without tax for the national fishing fleet and for the fuel distributor to consumer (see folio 36 of the resolution and 191 of the judicial expediente). No modification of said situation is recorded until the provisions of the single article of Law N° 9134 of 6 June 2013, where the indicated article 45 was authentically interpreted, which defines with greater precision the components that could be taken into consideration in fixing fuel prices for fishers, in the following manner: "... the expression "competitive fuel price at an international level", contained in both norms, which the non-sport national fishing fleet shall receive, is based on that the Costa Rican fishing sector shall acquire from the Costa Rican Petroleum Refinery (Recope), or from the entity legally authorized for the importation of hydrocarbons into the country, the fuel, finished product (gasoline and diesel), at a price that shall comprise only the following items: a) Product cost value (refined product: amount of the purchase invoice. Unrefined product: cost of refining in Costa Rica). b) Freight to the port of destination in Costa Rica. c) The insurances corresponding to the fuel. d) The cost for transferring the final product, within the national territory, to the distribution point. e) The cost of storage and pumping for the plant, where the sale is made. These values shall be fixed based on the average import cost of the previous month, or the last similar information available. No general price calculation model may encompass the fuel destined for the non-sport national fishing sector, therefore the Public Services Regulatory Authority (Aresep) must exclude any other item or component considered in the fixing of the common price of these fuels. Incopesca shall be in charge of the administration and control of the efficient use of the fuel destined for non-sport fishing activity...". In accordance with the foregoing, this Court has deemed it proven that, founded on the false premise of the derogation of article 45 of Law 7384, Law creating the Fisheries and Aquaculture Institute, of 29 March 1994, ARESEP proceeded to equate the plant price of fishers (excluding the respective tax) with that of any other final consumer, and incorporating in this concept a series of items not originally contemplated in the fixings prior to the administrative acts of resolutions 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on the twenty-sixth of September, two thousand two and RRG-2821-2002 of 9:30 hours on 24 October 2002. With the foregoing, it is evident that the provisions of the indicated article were partially breached, given that costs other than those expressly established in Law 7384 were used in the fixing of the plant price. Consequently, the two advantages that non-artisanal fishers obtained were the following: a) acquisition of the product at plant price, without charging transport costs outside the plant and marketing (with the exception that, as has been indicated, costs originally not contemplated were progressively loaded onto the referred plant price) and b) the exemption from paying the single fuel tax. However, it is not appropriate to accept the claim, inasmuch as the plaintiff, on the one hand, did not request the nullity of the respective administrative acts and on the other, the plaintiff's representation did not prove that with the changes in the items to consider in the price of fuels for fishers, the price thereof ceased to be competitive with the international market, just as the norm expressly establishes, besides the lack of proof of the invoked damage, as will be indicated subsequently. Although, as has been indicated, the different resolutions of ARESEP mentioned had as a consequence the equalization of the plant price of fishers with that of any final consumer (minus the respective tax), it does not mean per se, that it had as a consequence, such an incidence that implied that the national plant price ceased to possess competitiveness with the international market, additionally taking into consideration that in the case of fishers' fuels, the single fuel tax did not have to be paid, which is logical, had additional incidence on the national price compared to the outside. It corresponded to the plaintiff to demonstrate this aspect through the presentation of suitable technical proof, given that this Court cannot start from mere presumptions regarding the consequences of the mentioned acts with respect to competitiveness with international prices, inasmuch as we are in the presence of plant prices (which do not have incorporated the costs for transport to service stations and marketing at these) and that additionally do not include the payment of the respective tax. In accordance with the considerations made previously, article 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies, inasmuch as it orders: "The burden of proof is incumbent upon: 1) He who formulates a claim, regarding the affirmations of the constitutive facts of his right. 2) He who opposes a claim, regarding the affirmations of impeditive, modifying or extinctive facts of the plaintiff's right". About the burden of proof it has been said on some other occasion, that: "..., in order to the provisions of article 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure: "(…) The burden of proof does not suppose, then, any right of the adversary, but an imperative of the own interest of each litigant; it is a circumstance of risk that consists in that he who does not prove the facts he has to prove, loses the lawsuit. He can remove this burden from himself, by proving, that is, accrediting the truth of the facts that the Law indicates. And this does not create, evidently, a right in the adversary, as if a personal legal situation pertaining to each party; the encumbrance of not giving belief to the affirmations that it was necessary to prove and were not proven... it is the same not to prove as not to exist (…)". (Vote number 262 of nine hours forty minutes on the seventeenth of June, nineteen ninety-four, of the Second Civil Superior Court, First Section). In accordance with the foregoing, the mere invocation of the party is not sufficient, if there does not exist a solid evidentiary foundation that serves as demonstration of the facts or defenses that are alleged. On the grounds that the party requests the legality analysis, not for the purposes of extracting the conducts from the legal world, but exclusively for indemnification purposes, it corresponded to the plaintiff to demonstrate that beyond the existence or not of vices in the administrative conduct, this had an unlawful (antijurídica) consequence that could be a cause of harmful effects in his legal sphere. However, far from it, it is not recorded in the case file that the existence of negative changes in national competitiveness with respect to international fuel prices has been demonstrated, nor the incidence of ARESEP's decisions in that sense, that can be identifiable, differentiable and individualizable from other internal and external situations to the country that could have had an incidence on an eventual loss of the possibility of competing by our national fishers. As the plaintiff well indicates, the purpose of the norm was to protect the competitiveness of national fishers compared to the international market, being so that he did not demonstrate that in the case under analysis a distortion of the country's plant prices occurred such that it had an incidence on that objective. Additionally, this Court deems it necessary to refer to the allegation of ARESEP with respect to that what was done was done in exercise of its competencies. In this sense, although it is clear that the Public Services Regulatory Authority possesses sufficient competencies to impose on the public service concessionaires the rules that must be followed for the fixing of the tariff or the tariff adjustment, being so that the choice of the methodology for fixing prices and tariffs is a problem of a technical nature and consequently the methodologies that are compatible with the principle of service at cost established in article 3 of the Law creating ARESEP can be used, it must be remembered that it can exercise its regulatory competencies but within the framework of the legal order without disapplying the provisions of the Law, nor emptying the respective norm of content. In this order of ideas, its technical discretion must be exercised within the framework of the legal order and if the same establishes limits, it is not appropriate that by way of interpretation a specific provision be considered inapplicable or items not contemplated in a specific law be incorporated into the prices, when the legislator has opted to define the scope of the components of a determined price (just as it occurred in the case of the administrative act of resolution 2774-2002 of eight o'clock on the twenty-sixth of September, two thousand two. Although ARESEP fixes its tariffs in accordance with the principle of service at cost, the truth is that there was a valid, effective and in-force norm, which established a specific fixing method, in order to the legal interests that the legislator at the time decided to protect and it is not appropriate that by means of an administrative act said exceptional situation foreseen by the legal order is ignored. When the norm mentions the FOB plant price it cannot be analyzed out of context from the rest of the norm that indicates that the price to be fixed shall be "based on the average import cost of the previous month and considering the C.I.F. refinery cost, as well as the distribution costs by pipeline and distribution in plants...", without mentioning other costs integrated into the price later by mere interpretation by ARESEP. In any case, as has been indicated, the corresponding administrative conducts have not been challenged and with respect to their consequences, as has been said and shall be further delved into below, there is not the slightest proof of a harmful result against the plaintiff […].”
“VI.III Sobre el fondo: En lo medular, la parte actora en su demanda alega que la ARESEP mediante la resolución administrativa No.2774-2002, de las 8:00 horas, del 26 de setiembre del 2002, estableció en el considerando 4, que la Ley No.7593 derogó tácitamente al articulo 45 de la ley de INCOPESCA, por lo que las tarifas y precios de este servicio público (suministro de combustible a pescadores) se deberán determinar de acuerdo con la ley de la autoridad reguladora, de forma que, en su estructura tarifaria, se incorporarán no solo el costo por inversiones referido, sino todos aquellos costos que sean necesarios para la prestación del servicio público. Por consiguiente, la parte demandada amparada en esa resolución posteriormente se procedió a emitir la resolución No.RRG-2821,de las 9:30 horas, del 24 de octubre del 2002, conforme a la cual la entidad demandada materializó la eliminación del "precio preferencial", a favor de la flota pesquera nacional no deportiva, en lo relacionado con la adquisición del combustible. Consecuentemente, a partir del 4 de noviembre del 2002, de manera invariable y sostenida la ARESEP procedió a fijar el mismo precio del combustible, tanto para los consumidores en general, como igualmente para la flora pesquera no deportiva. Indica que ante esa situación fáctica, el sector pesquero no deportivo se vio en la necesidad de gestionar una "Ley de Interpretación Auténtica", sobre el alcance real y efectivo del beneficio en la compra del combustible, lo cual se materializó mediante la Ley No.9134, DEL 13 de junio del 2013 , por la cual la ARESEP se vio forzada a variar su criterio de fijación de precios para el pescador; siendo así que se dictó la Resolución No.RIE-084- 2013, publicada en la Gaceta del 1 de octubre del 2013, en la que se refleja un precio inferior, respecto al combustible que adquiera la flota pesquera no deportiva. Por consiguiente, en todo el período comprendido entre el 4 de noviembre de 2002 -que entró en vigencia la Citada Resolución No.RRG-2821-y hasta el1de octubre de 2013, que se implementó la Resolución No.RlE-084-2013, al sector pesquero no deportivo no se le reconoció un precio menor, respecto al precio del combustible para el consumidor en general. En razón de lo anterior, estima que la ARESEP ha incurrido en una conducta contraria a Derecho, al mostrarse omisa, de forma consciente, reiterada y sostenida, en cuanto a conceder un precio diferenciado al sector pesquero no deportivo, durante todo ese período que va del 4 de noviembre del 2002, hasta el 1 de octubre del 2013. La parte demandada responde dichos alegatos indicando que no es cierto que haya ignorado ni antes ni después de la entrada en vigencia de la interpretación auténtica, lo dispuesto en los artículos que la parte actora funda su demanda, dado que por la redacción superficial de los indicados artículos, la forma de implementar ese beneficio, en cuanto al establecimiento de la metodología de cálculo aplicable, los costos a considerar dentro de la prestación del servicio, y otros aspectos de carácter regulatorio,fueron dejados a la competencia técnica exclusiva de la Aresep, como se puntualiza en los párrafos finales del artículo 45 de la Ley 7384. Lo anterior debe complementarse con la existencia de la Ley 7593, que le impone, el poder-deber de aplicar el principio de servicio al costo a las tarifas de todos los servicios públicos regulados, siendo así que resulta necesario para el equilibrio financiero del prestador del servicio, ver incorporado en sus tarifas, determinados costos, entre ellos los de inversión que garanticen la continuidad,desarrollo y sostenibilidad de la actividad. No es cierto que la Autoridad Reguladora haya omitido establecer un precio competitivo para la flota pesquera nacional, pues desde el 2002 existe una resolución del Regulador General que establece la forma de cálculo de los precios de los combustibles para esa flota pesquera. Según ese método de cálculo, tales precios se fijan cuando se establezcan los precios plantel para Recope, en razón de que, el precio para la flota pesquera -considerando inversiones- equivale al precio plantel de RECOPE,sin impuesto único.Consecuentemente, desde entonces se incorpora el rubro de inversiones dentro del cálculo del precio plantel, de acuerdo con lo que señala el artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, que dispone el cobro de un precio FOB plantel. Con posterioridad, con ocasión a la interpretación auténtica, la metodología, de previo aprobada, para fijar el precio del combustible en planteles de distribución de Recope y al consumidor final", se adecua a dicha normativa, emitiéndose la resolución RIE-084-2013 del 24 de septiembre de 2013, por parte de la Intendencia de Energía. De conformidad con el análisis de la prueba aportada a los autos y los alegatos de las partes, estima este Tribunal que no lleva razón la parte actora, por los motivos que a continuación se indicarán. El artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 29 de marzo de 1994. estableció lo siguiente: "ARTICULO 45.- El sector pesquero adquirirá de RECOPE el combustible (gasolina y diésel), para la actividad de pesca no deportiva a un precio competitivo con el precio internacional, basado en el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior y considerando el costo C.I.F. refinería, así como los costos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en planteles, de tal forma que el precio sea F.O.B. Plantel. Ese precio será fijado por el Servicio Nacional de Electricidad; al cual deberá solicitarlo previamente RECOPE, según lo dispuesto en la Ley No. 6588 del 30 de julio de 1981, o el Instituto. El Instituto se encargará de la administración y el control del uso eficiente del combustible, destinado a la actividad pesquera no deportiva". Como se advierte de la norma, su propósito era establecer un precio competitivo para el combustible que se destinaría a la actividad pesquera no deportiva, estableciéndose como parámetro el precio F.O.B. plantel. De conformidad con la anterior norma, mediante resolución RRG-2708-2002 , la ARESEP estableció la fórmula de ajuste extraordinario para la determinación de precios para los combustibles que consumía la flota pesquera. De conformidad con lo anterior, la estructura de costos de la gasolina y diésel en dichos casos, comprendería: 1) Costo CIF refinería, 2) Costo por oleoducto 3) Costo por planteles 4) Costo administrativo. Con posterioridad de conformidad con resoluciones RJD-013, 014 y 016-2002 de la Junta Directiva de la ARESEP se acordó que dentro de la estructura de precio de los indicados combustibles, se debía incorporar las inversiones del prestador del servicio. Así, de conformidad con dicho acto administrativo, la estructura respectiva contenía: 1) Costo CIF refinería, 2) Costo por oleoducto 3) Costo por planteles 4) Costo administrativo 5) Costo de inversiones. Mediante resolución 2774-2002 de las ocho horas del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos, la ARESEP dispuso revocar la fórmula de ajuste extraordinario para determinación de los precios de combustible que consume la flota pesquera de conformidad con la resolución RRG-2708-2002 e indicar a las partes que las fijaciones de precios se realizarán conforme a los artículos 3,30 y 31 de la ley 7593. En razón de lo anterior, la estructura de costos de conformidad con este acto, contenía: 1) Costo CIF refinería, 2) Costo por oleoducto 3) Costo por planteles 4) Costo administrativo 5) Costo de inversiones 6) costos de prestación del servicio. Es así como en la práctica, esta resolución vino a equipara el precio plantel del combustible para pescadores al de cualquier consumidor final. Con posterioridad, mediante resolución RRG-2821-2002 de 9:30 horas de 24 de octubre de 2002 se contempló un precio de combustibles para los pescadores, de conformidad con la resolución 2772-2002, a precio plantel, sin impuestos. Es menester indicar que lo dispuesto en la indicada resolución 2772-2002 parte de la presunción de que las disposiciones de la Ley de Creación de la Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos, Ley número 7593, derogaron el indicado artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 29 de marzo de 1994, tal y como lo indica mediante criterio de la Dirección Jurídica Especializada de la ARESEP de fecha 21 de octubre de 2003 se le indicó a la Reguladora General que el artículo 45 de la Ley 7384 está vigente y debe aplicarse sobre las normas de rango inferior que lo contradigan. Sin embargo, ello no devino en modificar la fijación de precios indicada anteriormente, obviándose adecuarlo a la consideración de que dicha norma se encontraba vigente y establecía claramente que el precio FOB Plantel, debía tomar en consideración exclusivamente el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior del combustible y el costo C.I.F. refinería, así como los costos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en planteles. Lo anterior, se ve reafirmado con posterioridad, con el artículo 123 de la Ley 8436, Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 25 de abril de 2005, dispuso lo siguiente: "Artículo 123.—Exonérase a la flota pesquera nacional, excepto a la dedicada a la pesca deportiva, de todo tipo de impuestos nacionales para la importación de embarcaciones, repuestos, motores, implementos de navegación, de pesca y sus respectivos accesorios. En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 de la Ley Nº 7384, de 16 de marzo de 1994, RECOPE venderá el combustible (gasolina, regular y diésel) a la flota pesquera nacional, excepto para la actividad de pesca deportiva, a un precio competitivo con el precio internacional". Del texto de esta última norma se evidencia que se viene a reiterar la necesidad de que la fijación del precio que se realice sea competitiva con el precio internacional del combustible, si bien no se establece el parámetro indicado ut supra. Es menester indicar que mediante decreto ejecutivo 31299-MAG-MINAE, se reglamentó el artículo 45 dicho en el siguiente sentido: "Artículo 1º-En cumplimiento a lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 de la Ley Nº 7384 de 16 de marzo de 1994, RECOPE venderá el combustible (gasolina regular y diésel), a la Flota Pesquera Nacional, excepto la actividad de pesca deportiva, a un precio competitivo con el precio internacional. Artículo 2º—Para los efectos de la aplicación del presente Reglamento, se establecen las siguientes definiciones: a) PCFPi = Es el Precio de Venta en Plantel por Litro de Combustible (gasolina regular o diésel), que consume la Flota Pesquera Nacional No Deportiva. b) CIFRi = Es el costo mensual CIF Refinería, por Litro de Combustible, el cual incluye los costos F.O.B. (libre a bordo), así como el seguro y el transporte del combustible (gasolina regular y diésel), colocado en el Puerto de Desembarque Nacional. Se deberá interpretar que dentro de este concepto, su componente F.O.B., sea igual al que utilizó RECOPE como promedio en su último ajuste extraordinario, para cada uno de los combustibles antes citados. c) COif = Costo anual por litro trasegado por Oleoducto calculado con base en la información existente en el cierre contable del período fiscal inmediato anterior, de conformidad con la información existente en el último Estado Financiero Disponible, considerando como denominador, el volumen proporcional de combustibles trasegados por Oleoducto, destinado al consumo de la Flota Pesquera Nacional no Deportiva. El monto obtenido se actualizará con la inflación estimada para el período siguiente. d) CPif = Costo anual por litro vendido en Planteles calculado con base en la información existente en el cierre contable del Período Fiscal inmediato anterior, de conformidad con la información existente en el último Estado Financiero Disponible, considerando como denominador, el volumen proporcional de combustible vendido en Planteles, durante el período que corresponda, destinado al consumo de la Flota Pesquera Nacional No Deportiva. El monto obtenido se actualizará por la inflación estimada para el período siguiente. e) Precio Internacional de Combustible: Se determinará con base en el promedio del precio que RECOPE utiliza como referencia para los combustibles (gasolina, diésel), que importa. f) Combustible para Pesca: Abarca únicamente la variedad gasolina regular y el diésel. Artículo 3º-La fijación del precio de los combustibles, que consume la Flota Pesquera Nacional No Deportiva, se establecerá tomando en cuenta únicamente la siguiente estructura de costos: PCFPi = CIFRi + COif + CPif Para: i = Gasolina Regular, Diésel f = Fijos hasta la conclusión de la próxima revisión. Artículo 4º- En la determinación del precio de los combustibles destinados al consumo de la Flota Pesquera Nacional No Deportiva, no se considerarán los montos correspondientes a gastos de administración, depreciación de activos, cargos portuarios, inversión, márgenes de comercialización u otros de naturaleza similar, de modo tal, que se cumpla con el objetivo de que el precio fijado, sea competitivo con los precios internacionales de los mercados que utiliza RECOPE como referencia en la adquisición de los combustibles. Artículo 5º-Las solicitudes de precio podrán ser hechas por RECOPE o INCOPESCA o por el ente Regulador de Oficio, por cuanto las variaciones de precio de la Flota Pesquera Nacional No Deportiva, se harán siguiendo las mismas variaciones Ordinarias y Extraordinarias solicitadas por RECOPE." (el destacado es nuestro). A pesar de lo anterior, no hay prueba de que ARESEP haya modificado la fijación de precios hecha en la resolución 2774-2002 de las ocho horas del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos en cuanto a la incorporación de gastos de administración de RECOPE en la fijación del precio plantel del combustible. Dicho decreto fue derogado por el decreto ejecutivo 32527-MAG de 3 de junio de 2005, el cual dispuso: "Artículo 1º-En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 de la Ley Nº 7384 del 16 de marzo de 1994 y el artículo 123 párrafo segundo de la Ley Nº 8436 del 1° de marzo del 2005, RECOPE venderá el combustible (gasolina regular y diésel) a la Flota Pesquera Nacional, excepto la actividad de pesca deportiva, a un precio competitivo con el precio internacional. Artículo 2º-El precio competitivo con el precio internacional, para la venta del combustible mencionado en el artículo anterior, estará comprendido en la fijación tarifaria que se realice, por la aplicación de la excepción del impuesto único a los combustibles y la no incorporación dentro de dicho precio, de los montos correspondientes a gastos de administración, depreciación de activos, cargos portuarios e inversión. Artículo 3º-La diferencia resultante en la determinación del precio competitivo con el precio internacional, entre el monto correspondiente por la aplicación de la excepción del impuesto único a los combustibles y los rubros no incorporados en el artículo segundo, serán reconocidos por el Estado al Sector Pesquero Nacional no Deportivo a partir del "Acuerdo para la atención de temas críticos del Sector Pesquero Nacional" suscrito el 29 de enero del 2008. Para ello el Ministerio de Hacienda incorporará en el presupuesto nacional el monto correspondiente al subsidio establecido en el Artículo Segundo y lo girará al Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA), a través de la respectiva transferencia. El monto del subsidio por litro de combustible de gasolina regular o diésel será determinado por el INCOPESCA, el que en razón de sus competencias, será el encargado de su asignación a cada pescador beneficiado, su distribución y control, debiendo rendir un informe semestral al citado ministerio, de acuerdo a la normativa vigente. artículo 4º-El monto correspondiente a los rubros excepcionados en el artículo Segundo serán determinados con base en los registros contables de RECOPE del período fiscal inmediato anterior cerrado. Para ello y en relación con dicho periodo, RECOPE suministrará al INCOPESCA la información anual contable requerida para la cuantificación del subsidio por litro: los estados financieros indicados, las ventas totales de RECOPE en volumen, los gastos administrativos, la depreciación de activos, las inversiones de caja ejecutadas y los cargos portuarios". (el destacado es nuestro). Como se advierte, el mismo estableció la necesidad de fijación de precios para el combustible para pescadores sin tomar en consideración gastos de administración entre otros. No obstante, no consta en autos que ARESEP haya actuado de conformidad con dicho cuerpo normativo, manteniendo el costo interno administrativo de RECOPE. Inclusive es menester indicar que mediante resolución RRG-9233-2008 de diez horas con veinte minutos del once de noviembre de dos mil ocho, nuevamente se parte de la vigencia del artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, se fija un precio plantel sin impuesto para los precios de combustible para pesca no deportiva igual al del distribuidor para consumidor final en estaciones de servicio. […]
También lleva razón cuando indica que los factores MT y MC no se incluyen en el precio plantel de Recope, dado que corresponden al transporte a las estaciones de servicio y la comercialización en éstas. Por lo anterior, debe atenderse a que el precio plantel excluye estos factores, mas debiendo tomarse en consideración que como se indicó el indicado precio plantel de los combustibles para pescadores no se diferencia del señalado para otros consumidores finales, excepto en lo que corresponde a la exoneración de cobro del respectivo tributo sobre combustibles, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la Ley de Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributaria. Así a manera de ejemplo, la referida resolución RRG-9233-2008 de diez horas con veinte minutos del once de noviembre de dos mil ocho,fija iguales precios para el combustible en plantel sin impuesto para la flota pesquera nacional y para el distribuidor de combustibles a consumidor (ver folio 36 de la resolución y 191 del expediente judicial). No consta modificación de dicha situación hasta lo dispuesto en el artículo único de la ley N° 9134 del 6 de junio del 2013, en donde se interpretó auténticamente el indicado artículo 45, que se define con mayor precisión los componentes que se podrían tomar en consideración en la fijación de precios del combustible para pescadores, de la siguiente manera: "... la expresión "precio competitivo del combustible a nivel internacional", contenido en ambas normas, que recibirá la flota pesquera nacional no deportiva, es basado en que el sector pesquero costarricense adquirirá de la Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo (Recope), o de la entidad legalmente autorizada para la importación de hidrocarburos al país, el combustible, producto terminado (gasolina y diésel), a un precio que comprenderá únicamente los siguientes rubros: a) Valor del costo del producto (producto refinado: monto de la factura de compra. Producto no refinado: costo de refinamiento en Costa Rica). b) El flete hasta el puerto de destino en Costa Rica. c) Los seguros correspondientes al combustible. d) El costo por traslado del producto final, dentro del territorio nacional, hasta el punto de distribución. e) El costo de almacenamiento y bombeo para el plantel, donde se efectúe la venta. Esos valores se fijarán con base en el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior, o la última información similar disponible. Ningún modelo general de cálculo de precios podrá abarcar el combustible destinado al sector pesquero nacional no deportivo, por lo tanto la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos (Aresep) deberá excluir cualquier otro rubro o componente considerado en la fijación del precio común de estos combustibles. El Incopesca se encargará de la administración y el control del uso eficiente del combustible destinado a la actividad pesquera no deportiva...". De conformidad con lo anterior, este Tribunal ha tenido por demostrado que, fundada en la premisa falsa de la derogatoria del artículo 45 de la Ley 7384, Ley de Creación del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, de 29 de marzo de 1994, la ARESEP procedió a equiparar el precio plantel de los pescadores (excluyendo el respectivo impuesto) con el de cualquier otro consumidor final, e incorporando en este concepto una serie de rubros no contemplados originalmente en las fijaciones anteriores a los actos administrativos de resoluciones 2774-2002 de las ocho horas del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos y RRG-2821-2002 de 9:30 horas de 24 de octubre de 2002. Con lo anterior, es evidente que se incumplió parcialmente con lo dispuesto en el indicado artículo, dado que se empleó en la fijación del precio plantel otros costos diferentes a los establecidos expresamente en la Ley 7384. Por consiguiente, las dos ventajas que obtenían los pescadores no artesanales eran las siguientes: a) adquisición del producto precio plantel, sin cargar costos de transporte fuera de plantel y comercialización (con la salvedad de que como se ha indicado al referido precio plantel se le fueron cargando costos originalmente no contemplados) y b) la exoneración del pago del impuesto único sobre combustibles. No obstante, no resulta procedente acoger la demanda, en tanto que la parte actora, por una parte no pidió la nulidad de los respectivos actos administrativos y por otra, la representación del actor no probó que con los cambios en los rubros a considerar en el precio de los combustibles a los pescadores, el precio de aquellos haya dejado de ser competitivo con el mercado internacional, tal y como lo establece expresamente la norma, además de que la falta de prueba del daño invocado, tal y como se indicará posteriormente. Si bien, tal y como se ha indicado, las diferentes resoluciones de la ARESEP mencionadas tuvieron como consecuencia la equiparación del precio plantel de los pescadores con el de cualquier consumidor final (menos el tributo respectivo), ello no significa per se, que tuviera como consecuencia, una incidencia tal que implicara que el precio nacional plantel haya dejado de poseer competitividad con el mercado internacional, tomando en consideración además que en el caso de los combustibles de los pescadores no se debía pagar el impuesto único de combustibles, lo cual resulta lógico, tuvo incidencia adicional en el precio nacional frente al exterior. Correspondía a la parte actora demostrar este aspecto mediante la presentación de prueba técnica idónea, dado que este Tribunal no puede partir de meras presunciones respecto de las consecuencias de los actos mencionados respecto de la competitividad con los precios internacionales, en tanto que estamos en presencia de precios plantel (que no tienen incorporados los costos al transporte a las estaciones de servicio y la comercialización en éstas) y que además no incluyen el pago del impuesto respectivo. De conformidad con las consideraciones realizadas anteriormente, se aplica el artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil, en tanto dispone: "La carga de la prueba incumbe: 1) A quien formule una pretensión, respecto a las afirmaciones de los hechos constitutivos de su derecho. 2) A quien se oponga a una pretensión, en cuanto a las afirmaciones de hechos impeditivos, modificativos o extintivos del derecho del actor". Sobre la carga de la prueba se ha dicho en alguna otra oportunidad, que: “…, en orden a lo dispuesto en el artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil: “(…) La carga de la prueba no supone, pues, ningún derecho del adversario, sino un imperativo del propio interés de cada litigante; es una circunstancia de riesgo que consiste en que quien no prueba los hechos que ha de probar, pierde el pleito. Puede quitarse esta carga de encima, probando, es decir, acreditando la verdad de los hechos que la Ley señala. Y esto no crea, evidentemente, un derecho en el adversario, como si una situación jurídica personal atinente a cada parte; el gravamen de no restar creencia a las afirmaciones que era menester probar y no se probaron... es lo mismo no probar que no existir (…)”. (Voto número 262 de las nueve horas cuarenta minutos del diecisiete de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, del Tribunal Superior Segundo Civil, Sección Primera). De conformidad con lo anterior, la mera invocación de la parte no es suficiente, si no existe un sólido fundamento probatorio que sirva de demostración de los hechos o defensas que se alegan. En razón de que la parte solicita el análisis de legalidad, no para efectos de extraer las conductas del mundo jurídico, sino exclusivamente con fines indemnizatorios, le correspondía al actor demostrar que más allá de la existencia o no de vicios en la conducta administrativa, ésta tuvo una consecuencia antijiurídica que podría ser provocadora de efectos dañosos en su esfera jurídica. No obstante, lejos de ello, en autos no consta que se haya demostrado la existencia de cambios negativos en la competitividad nacional con respecto a los precios internacionales del combustible, ni la incidencia de las decisiones de la ARESEP en tal sentido, que puedan ser identificables, diferenciables e individualizables de otras situaciones internas y externas al país que pudieren haber incidido en una eventual pérdida de la posibilidad de competir de nuestros pescadores naciones. Como bien lo indica la parte actora, el propósito de la norma era proteger la competitividad de los pescadores nacionales frente al mercado internacional, siendo así que él no demostró que en el caso de análisis se haya presentado una distorsión de los precios plantel del país tal que haya incidido en tal objetivo. De manera adicional estima este Tribunal necesario referirse a la alegación de la ARESEP con respecto a que lo actuado fue hecho en ejercicio de sus competencias. En este sentido si bien es claro que la Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos posee competencias suficientes para imponer a los concesionarios del servicio público las reglas que deben seguirse para la fijación de la tarifa o del ajuste tarifario, siendo así que la escogencia de la metodología de fijación de precios y tarifas es un problema de índole técnica y por consiguiente se puede utilizar las metodologías que sean compatibles con el principio del servicio al costo establecido en el artículo 3 de la Ley de Creación de la ARESEP, debe recordarse que ésta puede ejercer sus competencias regulatorias pero dentro del marco del ordenamiento sin desaplicar lo dispuesto en la Ley, ni vaciar de contenido la respectiva norma. En este orden de ideas, su discrecionalidad técnica debe ejercerse dentro del marco del ordenamiento jurídico y si el mismo establece límites, no resulta procedente que vía interpretación se considere no aplicable una disposición determinada o se incorporen rubros a los precios no contemplados en una ley concreta, cuando el legislador ha optado por definir los alcances de los componentes de un determinado precio (tal y como sucedió en el caso del acto administrativo de resolución 2774-2002 de las ocho horas del veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil dos, Si bien la ARESEP fija sus tarifas de conformidad con el principio de servicio al costo, lo cierto es que había una norma válida, eficaz y vigente, que establecía un método de fijación determinado, en orden a los intereses jurídicos que el legislador en su momento decidió tutelar y no es procedente que mediante acto administrativo se obvie dicha situación excepcional prevista por el ordenamiento jurídico. Cuando la norma menciona el precio FOB plantel no puede analizarse descontextualizada del resto de la norma que indica que el precio a fijar será "basado en el costo promedio de importación del mes anterior y considerando el costo C.I.F. refinería, así como los costos de distribución por oleoducto y distribución en planteles...", sin que se mencione otros costos integrados al precio posteriormente por mera interpretación de la ARESEP. En todo caso, como se ha indicado, las conductas administrativas correspondientes no se han objetado y con respecto a sus consecuencias, como se ha dicho y se terminará de ahondar a continuación, no hay la más mínima prueba de un resultado dañoso en contra del actor […].”
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.