Interpretation of Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 regarding fee collectionInterpretación conforme del artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 sobre cobro del canon

II. SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS. The PLAINTIFF maintains

• 1)It alleges that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), the collection of the fee (canon) sought by the Municipality of Parrita is improper, since the Concession (Concesión) over the requested parcel was not approved by the ICT, by virtue of it being located in a tourist zone, according to the Esterillos Beach Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador de Playa Esterillos). It indicates that approval by the ICT constitutes a sine qua non requirement for the administrated party to be able to make use and enjoyment of the property requested in concession, including the erection of constructions necessary for "residential recreational" enjoyment. It alleges that without the ICT's approval and subsequent registration of the Concession Contract (Contrato de Concesión) before the Concessions Registry (Registro de Concesiones) of the National Registry (Registro Nacional), it is forbidden to erect a construction on the requested parcel. 2) It points out that the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República), in opinion C-319-2008 of September 12, 2008, concluded that the approval of the concession contract by the ICT is necessary for it to have the corresponding legal effects, including the collection of the fee, which would begin to be collected only once that legal certainty of approval exists, following notification to the interested party.

It maintains that the collection of the fee challenged here is based on a "literal and isolated reading" of numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 (Reglamento a la Ley 6043) by the Legal Advisory Office (Asesoría Legal) of the Municipality of Parrita, a reading that leads to an erroneous and isolated interpretation of what was intended to be legislated.

III.REGARDING THE CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION (INTERPRETACIÓN CONFORME) OF ARTICLE 44 OF THE REGULATION TO THE MARITIME TERRESTRIAL ZONE LAW (LEY DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE). In the first instance, it must be taken as a starting point that Article 42 of Law 6043 establishes—in what is relevant—that concessions in tourist areas require the approval of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo), and that if the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa) will be necessary. It is necessary to highlight that said norm was partially repealed, solely insofar as it refers to the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras o Colonización, later called the Institute of Agrarian Development, Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) being responsible for the approval of concessions granted in the other areas of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), given that by means of Article 82 of Law 9036 (in force since November 30, 2012), it was provided: "The obligations contemplated in Law Nº 6043, Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, of March 2, 1977, in relation to the Institute of Agrarian Development are hereby repealed" (highlighting is not from the original).

At this point, it is worth recalling that according to numeral 145 of the General Public Administration Law, the effects of administrative acts may be subject to efficacy requirements (requisitos de eficacia), established by the same act or by the legal system, and that those efficacy requirements will produce retroactive effect to the date of the administrative act, unless expressly provided otherwise. Now, when the formal administrative conduct requires the approval of another entity or body, as long as this has not been granted, that conduct will not be effective, nor can it be communicated, challenged, or executed (Articles 140 and 141 of the General Public Administration Law). Consequently, it is contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources and legality, that numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 establishes—with the exception of the case of concessions granted in areas of the maritime terrestrial zone that are neither of tourist suitability, nor constitute islands or islets, as a consequence of the legal reform in force since November 30, 2012—that the collection of the fee be carried out immediately after the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) agrees to grant the concession and after the respective contract is signed between the municipal entity and the concessionaire (concesionario), this because those acts are not effective until the Costa Rican Tourism Institute or the Legislative Assembly approves the granted concession and the corresponding notification is made to the interested party (Article 140 of the General Public Administration Law).

Likewise, the protocolization of documents recording the municipal agreement granting the concession, the act of approval (when necessary), and the literal transcription of the contract (Article 84 of the Regulation to Law 6043), must be registered in the General Registry of Concessions of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Registro General de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre)—regardless of whether they are subject to approval or not—since according to the last paragraph of numeral 30 of Law 6043, "...Those titles shall not prejudice third parties except from the date of their receipt or presentation in said Registry...". Now, given that Article 42 of Law 6043 was subsequently partially modified in the terms previously indicated, this Tribunal considers that Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 is not illegal, insofar as it is interpreted in accordance (interprete conforme) with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Law, which implies that the fee may be collected by the municipal entity as of the time the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and the interested party is notified under the terms of Article 140 of the General Public Administration Law.

In cases where approval is not required (concessions in zones not declared as tourist zones, or over islands or islets), the fee will be effective and, therefore, may be collected once the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the contract between the Mayor (Alcalde) and the concessionaire is signed, based on the partial reform to Article 42 of Law 6043 established in numeral 82 of Law 9036, in force since November 30, 2012. Without prejudice to the fact that registration in the National Registry of Concessions of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre)—regardless of whether the concession is subject to approval or not—is only for the purposes of third parties (Article 30, last paragraph of Article 30 of Law 6043). Once this judgment becomes final, it shall be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State, since it was the Executive Branch (Poder Ejecutivo) that issued the regulatory norm whose consistent interpretation (interpretación conforme) is ordered in this judgment (Article 130, subsection 3 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)).

IV.REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF THE COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FEE FOR AN UNAPPROVED CONCESSION. According to what was analyzed in the preceding recital, this Tribunal considers that while it is true that numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 establishes that "...Once the concession is approved by the Municipal Council, the interested party will be notified, and a term of 30 business days will be set to sign the contract and deposit the amount corresponding to the first annuity of the fee in favor of the respective municipality..." (highlighting is not from the original); it is also true that, contrary to what the representative of the defendant Municipality affirms, applying that regulatory provision to the specific case, in a literal, isolated manner, and discordantly with Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Law, implies a manifest violation of the principles of legality and hierarchy of sources of the legal system (numerals 6 and 11 of the General Public Administration Law).

This Tribunal considers that said circumstance is paradoxical with the content of the following formal conducts emanating from the municipal entity itself, namely: A) Both in the original concession contract (clause fifteen) and in the addendum thereto (clause six) signed by the Municipal Mayor of Parrita and the plaintiff, it is established: i) Clause Fifteen: "...This concession shall be valid and shall have all effects as of its registration in the General Registry of Concessions..." (folios 40 to 36 of the administrative file; highlighting is not from the original). Clearly, without prejudice to the fact that registration in the National Registry of Concessions is for the purposes of third parties and not as indicated therein; ii) Clause six: "...The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted from the date of approval by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute..." (folios 108 to 101 of the administrative file; highlighting is not from the original).

• B)In addition to the above, it is established as proven that the plaintiff has not been able to usufruct, in accordance with the coastal regulatory plan (plan regulador costero), parcel 388 situated in Esterillos Beach, which was granted to him in concession by the Municipal Council of Parrita for residential recreational use, and which was not approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (folios 31 to 29, 155 to 153, 148 to 127 of the administrative file), since the attorney of the Legal Department of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone of the Municipality of Parrita, when responding to the query sent by the plaintiff via email on May 29, 2015, regarding the possibility of granting him a construction permit, if he eventually paid the full amount charged for the concession fee not approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file), clearly indicated "...Regarding the granting of construction permits, they are granted by the Urban Development department of the Municipality of Parrita, once the concession is registered in the National Registry of Concessions of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone of the National Registry, which occurs after the approval or endorsement that must be carried out by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute..." (folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file; highlighting is not from the original).
• C)Likewise, it is worth noting that in view of the certification appearing on folio 160 of the administrative file, it is evident that file number 2478-2003, in which the concession application filed by the plaintiff was processed, "...is duly archived in the Department of Maritime Terrestrial Zone...", for which reason, it is evident and manifestly contrary to law, that the Municipality of Parrita seeks to collect from the plaintiff the annual amount for the fee from the year 2009 to 2016, which amounted to the sum of ₡9,848,640.00 (nine million eight hundred forty-eight thousand six hundred forty colones) (images 164 to 166 of the virtual file on the date this judgment is rendered; folios 168 to 165, 119 to 117 of the administrative file), despite the fact that since May 23, 2014, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute did not approve the concession granted to the plaintiff by the Municipal Council of Parrita and that the file is archived as a consequence of that denial, as certified by the Secretary of the Municipal Council on July 2, 2014, and that the plaintiff has not been able to usufruct the concession.

Finally, this Tribunal considers that the Municipality has also incurred a violation of the provisions of numeral 10 of the General Public Administration Law, since it limited itself to applying, in a literal, isolated, and illegal manner, the provisions of Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 to the detriment of the plaintiff, despite having the duty to interpret it in the manner that best guaranteed the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual, taking into account for such effect, the other related norms and the nature and value of the conduct and the facts to which it refers. Said illegitimate omission has not only caused the filing of this declaratory proceeding, but also that this Tribunal must interpret Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 in the terms set forth in recital III of this judgment, in order not to declare the partial nullity of that regulatory norm.

Consequently, and for all the foregoing, this Tribunal declares the absolute nullity of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Department of Revenues and Collections (Departamento de Rentas y Cobranzas) of the Municipality of Parrita, and by connection, of official communication of September 18, 2015, from the Leasing Section (Sección de Arriendo) of the Department of Maritime Terrestrial Zone of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter Nº 1 of the regular session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita. This implies that the Municipality of Parrita may collect the fee from the plaintiff, only when the Costa Rican Tourism Institute approves the concession, provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are corrected, namely: alleged partial location of the parcel on lands of State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado); indeterminacy of the exact site where the parcel subject to the concession is located because the boundary markers do not coincide; supposed invasion of a portion of the public area by one of the fences (folios 148 to 127, 155 to 153 of the administrative file).

V. REGARDING THE PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES AND SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES

This Tribunal reaches the conclusion that the plaintiff has sufficient active standing (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, since the Municipality of Parrita intends to charge him the fee for the period from 2009 to 2016, based on a literal, isolated, and illegal application of Article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043, despite the fact that the Costa Rican Tourism Institute did not approve the concession that was granted to him by the Municipal Council of Parrita. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the State and the Municipality of Parrita, as provided in subsection

• 1)of numeral 12 of said Code, given that they are the authors of the conduct subject to the proceeding, specifically, of the issuance of the Regulation to Law 6043 (State) and of the collection requirements to the detriment of the plaintiff for the fee for the period from 2009 to 2016 (Municipality of Parrita). For its part, the interest remains current, insofar as the questioned conducts continue to have effects on the plaintiff's legal sphere and require a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds that, for all the reasons set forth in recitals III and IV of this judgment, the exception of lack of right (falta de derecho) raised by the representative of the State is rejected, and the complaint filed by Jorge Alberto Jiménez Cordero against the Municipality of Parrita and the State is granted, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in whatever is not expressly indicated:
• 1)It is declared that the provisions of numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 are not illegal, insofar as they are interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Public Administration Law, which implies that the fee may be collected by the municipal entity as of the time the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and the interested party is notified under the terms of Article 140 of the General Public Administration Law. Consequently, for cases in which approval is not required (concessions in zones declared as non-tourist, or over islands or islets), the fee will be effective and, therefore, may be collected once the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the contract between the Mayor and the concessionaire is signed, based on the partial reform to Article 42 of Law 6043 established in numeral 82 of Law 9036, in force since November 30, 2012. As of the time this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State, since it was the Executive Branch that issued the regulatory norm whose consistent interpretation is ordered in this judgment (Article 130, subsection 3 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code).
• 2)The absolute nullity is declared of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Department of Revenues and Collections of the Municipality of Parrita, and by connection, of official communication of September 18, 2015, from the Leasing Section of the Department of Maritime Terrestrial Zone of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter Nº 01 of the regular session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita.
• 3)The Municipality of Parrita is ordered not to charge the fee to the plaintiff, until the Costa Rican Tourism Institute approves the concession, provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are corrected.-
• 3)It considers that the cited numeral contravenes the spirit of Law 6043, since the individual is prohibited from using public domain assets without the respective concession granted in accordance with the legal system; and in this case, the concession shall be considered granted only once it is approved by the ICT and registered with the Concessions Registry. Such is the case, that clause six of the Addendum to the concession contract signed on December 13, 2013, establishes: *“The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted from the date of approval by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, in accordance with Dictamen 319-2008 of the Procuraduría General de la República...”.* Consequently, it considers that if the concession term begins to run from the approval of the Concession Contract by the ICT, the collection of the canon (canon) that the Municipalidad de Parrita intends to make is illegal, since demanding payment of the canon from the signing of the concession contract would legitimize unjust enrichment on its part. For her part, the representative of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE PARRITA states that: a) She alleges that Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 does not indicate that the Municipality must wait for the approval or endorsement of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo to proceed with the corresponding collection of the canon, since on the contrary, it establishes that: *“once the concession is approved by the Concejo”* the interested party must deposit the amount corresponding to the first annual installment of the canon. b) She maintains that in accordance with the principle of legality, the Municipality could not assume powers that do not correspond to it by suspending or annulling the collection of the canon that the Law authorizes when there is a current Contract, since by doing so it would be contravening what is indicated in numeral 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043. c) Consequently, she states that she opposes the lawsuit filed, which alleges the impropriety of the collection of the CANON on a parcel located in Playa Esterillos, Distrito Único, Cantón Parrita, Provincia de Puntarenas, with an area of 1,089.47 m2, as shown on cadastral map P-438163-81, for Residential Recreational use, authorized by municipal Acuerdo number 05, Artículo tercero, Punto number 02, Asunto number 03, of the ordinary session number 2157-2008, held on August twenty-fifth, 2008, since in her judgment, the provisions of Ley 6043 and its Reglamento have been observed. Finally, the representative of the ESTADO indicates that: i) In the lawsuit filed, a declaration of illegality of Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre is sought because, in the opinion of the plaintiff, it is contrary to the provisions of numerals 42 of the Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre and 145.4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública; however, in the development of the section of the lawsuit called “Derecho,” it is clearly indicated that what is alleged as contrary to law is the interpretation made by the Municipalidad de Parrita of the same, which the plaintiff considers erroneous, literal, and isolated from the rest of the legal system. ii) She maintains that Article 145, subsection 4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública establishes that when an act requires approval from another body, the effectiveness of said act shall be subject to the cited approval; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 42 of Law 6043, the concession in question would take effect only once it has been approved by the ICT and not until it is inscribed in the Registry, as the plaintiff indicates. iii) She considers that regarding the moment from which the collection of the canon in maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) concessions must be made and the correct interpretation that must be given to Article 44 of the Reglamento a Law N° 6043, the Procuraduría General de la República has issued a series of pronouncements dating back to 2000, creating a consistent line of criteria on the matter. In this regard, she indicates that recently, Dictamen C-279-2015 was issued, in which the administrative and judicial jurisprudence, as well as the regulations related to the topic, were analyzed. iv) Therefore, she considers that the Estado has maintained that the rule whose legality is questioned, *must be interpreted harmoniously with the rest of the legal system*, in light of the provisions of numerals 142 of Law N° 6043 and 145.4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública, *so that by performing the correct interpretation of the same, it is not illegal but rather in conformity with the law, so the lawsuit filed against the Estado is improper*.

IIIo.- ON THE CONFORMING INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 44 OF THE REGLAMENTO A LA LEY DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE. In the first instance, it must be assumed that Article 42 of Law 6043 establishes –as relevant– that concessions in tourist areas require the approval of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and that if the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Asamblea Legislativa shall be necessary. It is necessary to highlight that said rule was partially repealed, *only with regard* to the fact that the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (later named Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) was responsible for the approval of concessions granted in other areas of the maritime-terrestrial zone, since through Article 82 of Law 9036 (effective since November 30, 2012), it was provided: *“Repeal the obligations contemplated in Law Nº 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, of March 2, 1977, in relation to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario”* (highlighting not from the original).

At this point, it should be recalled that according to numeral 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the effects of administrative acts may be subject to effectiveness requirements, set by the act itself or by the legal system, and that those effectiveness requirements will produce a retroactive effect to the date of the administrative act, unless expressly provided otherwise. Now then, when the formal administrative conduct requires approval from another entity or body, as long as this has not been given, that conduct shall not be effective, nor may it be communicated, challenged, or executed (Articles 140 and 141 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Consequently, it is contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources and legality, for numeral 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 to establish –*with the exception of the case of concessions granted in areas of the maritime-terrestrial zone that are not of tourist suitability, nor that constitute islands or islets, as a result of the legal reform effective since November 30, 2012*– that the collection of the canon be carried out immediately after the Concejo Municipal agrees to grant the concession and after the respective contract is signed between the municipal entity and the concessionaire, because said acts are not effective until the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Asamblea Legislativa approve the granted concession, and the corresponding decision is communicated to the interested party (Article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública).

Likewise, the notarization (protocolización) of documents containing the municipal agreement granting the concession, the act of approval (when necessary), and the literal transcription of the contract (Article 84 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043), must be inscribed in the Registro General de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre –regardless of whether they are subject to approval or not–, since according to the last paragraph of numeral 30 of Law 6043, *“…These titles shall not prejudice third parties except from the date of their receipt or presentation in said Registry…”*. Now then, given that *the reform partially modifying Article 42 of Law 6043 occurred subsequently in the terms previously indicated*, this Tribunal considers that it is not illegal for Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043, insofar as it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, *which implies that the canon may be collected by the municipal entity starting from when the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and communicated to the interested party in the terms of Article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.

In cases where approval is not required* (concessions in zones not declared as tourist, or on islands or islets), the canon will be effective and therefore, may be collected once the Concejo Municipal agrees to grant the concession and proceeds to sign the contract between the Alcalde and the concessionaire, based on the partial reform to Article 42 of Law 6043 provided in numeral 82 of Law 9036, effective since November 30, 2012. Without prejudice to the fact that the inscription in the Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre –*regardless of whether the concession is subject to approval or not*–, is only for purposes regarding third parties *(Article 30, last paragraph of Article 30 of Law 6043)*. Once this sentence becomes final, it shall be published in its entirety in the official newspaper La Gaceta, at the cost of the Estado, since it was the Poder Ejecutivo that issued the regulatory rule whose conforming interpretation is provided in this sentence *(Article 130 subsection 3 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)*.

IVo.- REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF THE COLLECTION REQUESTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE CANON OF AN UNAPPROVED CONCESSION. In accordance with what was analyzed in the preceding considering, this Tribunal considers that although it is true that numeral 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 establishes *“…Once the concession is approved by the Concejo Municipal, it shall be communicated to the interested party, and a term of 30 business days shall be set to sign the contract and deposit the amount corresponding to the first annual installment of the canon in favor of the respective municipality…”* (highlighting not from the original); it is also true that, contrary to what the representative of the defendant Municipality affirms, *applying* that regulatory provision to the specific case, in a literal, isolated, and discordant manner with Articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, implies a manifest violation of the principles of legality and hierarchy of the sources of the legal system (numerals 6 and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública).

This Tribunal considers that this circumstance is paradoxical with the content of the following formal conducts emanating from the municipal entity itself, namely: A) Both in the original concession contract (clause fifteen), and in the addendum (addendum) to the same (clause six) signed by the Alcalde Municipal de Parrita and the plaintiff, it is established: i) Clause Fifteen: *"...This concession shall be valid and shall take all effects starting from the inscription of the same in the Registro General de Concesiones..."* (folios 40 to 36 of the administrative file; highlighting not from the original). Of course, without prejudice to the fact that the inscription in the Registro Nacional de Concesiones is for the purposes of third parties and not as indicated therein *;* ii) Clause Six: *"...The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted starting from the date of approval by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo..."* (folios 108 to 101 of the administrative file; highlighting not from the original).

• B)In addition to the above, it is established that the plaintiff has not been able to enjoy (usufructuar) parcel 388 located in Playa Esterillos, which was granted in concession by the Concejo Municipal de Parrita for recreational residential use, in accordance with the coastal regulatory plan (plan regulador costero), and which was not approved by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo *(folios 31 to 29, 155 to 153, 148 to 127 of the administrative file),* since the lawyer from the Legal Department of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the Municipalidad de Parrita, in responding to the query sent by the plaintiff via email on May 29, 2015, regarding the possibility of granting him a construction permit, if he eventually paid the entire sum collected for the canon of the concession not approved by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo *(folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file), clearly indicated “…Regarding the granting of construction permits, they are granted by the Urban Development Department of the Municipalidad de Parrita, once the concession is inscribed in the Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the Registro Nacional, which is subsequent to the approval or endorsement that must be carried out by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo…”* (folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file; highlighting not from the original).
• C)Likewise, it should be noted that in view of the certification appearing at folio 160 of the administrative file, it is evident that file number 2478-2003, in which the concession request filed by the plaintiff was processed, *“…is duly archived in the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre…”,* which is why *it is evident and manifestly contrary to law* that the Municipalidad de Parrita seeks to collect from the plaintiff the annual amount for the canon from 2009 to 2016, which amounted to the sum of ¢9,848,640.00 (nine million eight hundred forty-eight thousand six hundred forty colones) *(images 164 to 166 of the virtual file as of the date of issuance of this sentence; folios 168 to 165, 119 to 117 of the administrative file),* despite the fact that since May 23, 2014, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo did not approve the concession granted to the plaintiff by the Concejo Municipal de Parrita and that the file is archived as a result of that denial, as certified by the Secretary of the Concejo Municipal on July 2, 2014, and that the plaintiff has not been able to enjoy the concession.

Finally, this Tribunal considers that the Municipality has also incurred a violation of the provisions of numeral 10 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, *since it limited itself to applying the provisions of Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 in a literal, isolated, and illegal manner to the detriment of the claimant*, even though it had the duty to interpret it in the way that best guaranteed the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual, taking into account for that purpose the other related rules and the nature and value of the conduct and the facts to which it refers. This illegitimate omission has not only caused the filing of this proceeding, but also, that this Tribunal must interpret Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 in the terms set forth in considering III of this sentence, in order not to declare the partial nullity of that regulatory rule. *Consequently and for all the foregoing, this Tribunal declares the absolute nullity of the collection request issued on November 26, 2013, by the Department of Revenue and Collections of the Municipalidad de Parrita, and by connection, of the official letter of September 18, 2015, from the Leasing Section of the Department of Zona Marítimo Terrestre of the Municipalidad de Parrita, and of acuerdo number 02, article three, matter Nº1 of the ordinary session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Concejo Municipal de Parrita*.

This implies that the Municipalidad de Parrita may collect the canon from the plaintiff only when the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo approves the concession, *provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are corrected*, namely: alleged partial location of the parcel on lands of Patrimonio Natural del Estado; indeterminacy of the exact site where the concession parcel is located because the boundary markers do not coincide; supposed invasion of a portion of the public area by one of the fences *(folios 148 to 127, 155 to 153 of the administrative file).* Vo.- ON THE REQUIREMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES. This Tribunal concludes that the plaintiff has sufficient standing (legitimación activa) to participate in this process in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since the Municipalidad de Parrita seeks to collect the canon for the period from 2009 to 2016, based on a literal, isolated, and illegal application of Article 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043, despite the fact that the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo did not approve the concession that was granted to him by the Concejo Municipal de Parrita.

Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the Estado and the Municipalidad de Parrita, as provided in subsection 1) of numeral 12 of the cited Código, given that they are the authors of the conduct at issue in the process, specifically, the issuance of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043 (Estado) and the collection requests to the detriment of the plaintiff for the canon for the period from 2009 to 2016 (Municipalidad de Parita). For its part, the interest remains current, insofar as the questioned conducts continue to have effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and he requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds that for everything stated in considerings III and IV of this sentence, the defense of lack of right raised by the representative of the Estado is rejected and the lawsuit is granted filed by Jorge Alberto Jiménez Cordero against the Municipalidad de Parrita and the Estado, in the following terms, *understood as denied in what is not expressly indicated*: 1) It is declared that it is not illegal what is provided in numeral 44 of the Reglamento a la Ley 6043, insofar as it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, *which implies that the canon may be collected by the municipal entity starting from when the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and communicated to the interested party in the terms of Article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública.

Consequently, for cases where no approval is required* (concessions in zones declared as non-tourist, or on islands or islets), the canon will be effective and therefore, may be collected once the Concejo Municipal agrees to grant the concession and proceeds to sign the contract between the Alcalde and the concessionaire, based on the partial reform to Article 42 of Law 6043 provided in numeral 82 of Law 9036, effective since November 30, 2012.

Once this judgment becomes final, it shall be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State, since it was the Executive Branch that issued the regulatory provision whose interpretation is ordered in this judgment (article 130, subsection 3 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). 2) The absolute nullity is declared of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Department of Revenue and Collections of the Municipality of Parrita, and by connection (conexidad), of the official letter of September 18, 2015 from the Leasing Section of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Department of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter No. 01 of ordinary session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita. 3) The Municipality of Parrita is ordered not to charge the fee to the plaintiff, until the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo approves the concession, provided that the substantive defects that led to its non-approval are corrected.-" IIo.- SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. The PLAINTIFF (parte ACTORA) maintains:

• 1)Alleges that in accordance with the provisions of articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the collection of the fee sought by the Municipality of Parrita is improper, since the Concession over the requested plot was not approved by the ICT, by virtue of being located in a tourist zone, according to the Playa Esterillos Regulatory Plan. Indicates that approval by the ICT constitutes a sine qua non requirement for the administered party to be able to use and enjoy the property requested in concession, including the erection of any constructions necessary for "residential recreational" enjoyment. Alleges that without the approval of the ICT and subsequent registration of the Concession Contract with the Concessions Registry of the National Registry, it is prohibited from erecting a construction on the requested plot.
• 2)Points out that the Procuraduría General de la República, in opinion C-319-2008 of September 12, 2008, concluded that the approval of the concession contract by the ICT is necessary for it to produce the corresponding legal effects, including the collection of the fee, which would only begin to be collected once there is that legal certainty of approval, after prior notification to the interested party. Argues that the collection of the fee challenged here is based on a "literal and isolated reading" of numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 by the Legal Advisory Office of the Municipality of Parrita, a reading that leads to an erroneous and isolated interpretation of what was intended to be legislated.
• 3)Considers that the cited numeral contravenes the spirit of Law 6043, since the individual is prohibited from using public domain property without the respective concession granted in accordance with the legal system; and in this case, the concession shall be considered granted only once it has been approved by the ICT and registered with the Concessions Registry. This is such that in the sixth clause of the Addendum to the concession contract signed on December 13, 2013, it is established: "The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted from the date of approval by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, in accordance with Opinion 319-2008 of the Procuraduría General de la República... ". Consequently, it considers that if the term of the concession begins to run from the approval of the Concession Contract by the ICT, the collection of the fee sought by the Municipality of Parrita is illegal, since demanding payment of the fee from the signing of the concession contract would legitimize unjust enrichment on its part. For her part, the representative of the MUNICIPALITY OF PARRITA states that: a) Alleges that article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 does not indicate that the Municipality must wait for the approval or endorsement of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo to proceed with the collection corresponding to the fee, as on the contrary, it establishes that: "once the concession is approved by the Council" the interested party must deposit the amount corresponding to the first annuity of the fee. b) Argues that according to the principle of legality, the Municipality could not assume powers that do not correspond to it by suspending or annulling the collection of the fee that the Law authorizes when there is a valid Contract, since by acting in that manner it would be contravening what is indicated in numeral 44 of the regulation to Law 6043. c) Consequently, states that it opposes the filed lawsuit, which alleges the impropriety regarding the collection of the FEE on a plot located in Playa Esterillos, Single District, Canton of Parrita, Province of Puntarenas, with a constant of 1,089.47 m2, with a view in cadastral plan P- 438163-81, for a Residential Recreational use, authorized according to Municipal Agreement number 05, Article three, Point number 02, Matter number 03, of ordinary session number 2157-2008, held on August twenty-fifth, 2008, since in its judgment, the provisions of Law 6043 and its regulation have been observed. Lastly, the representative of the STATE, indicates that: i) In the filed lawsuit, a declaration of illegality of article 44 of the Regulation to the Zona Marítimo Terrestre Law is sought because, in the opinion of the plaintiff, it is contrary to the provisions of numerals 42 of the Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre and 145.4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública, however, in the development of the section of the lawsuit called "Law" it is clearly indicated that what is alleged as contrary to law is the interpretation made of it by the Municipality of Parrita, which the plaintiff considers erroneous, literal, and isolated from the rest of the legal system. ii) Argues that article 145, subsection 4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública establishes that when an act requires approval from another body, the effectiveness thereof shall be subject to said approval, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 42 of Law 6043, the concession in question would only take effect once it has been approved by the ICT and not once it is registered in the Registry, as the plaintiff indicates. iii) Considers that regarding the moment from which the fee must be collected in maritime terrestrial zone concessions and the correct interpretation that must be given to article 44 of the Regulation to Law No. 6043, the Procuraduría General de la República has issued a series of pronouncements dating from 2000, creating a consistent line of criteria in this regard. In this sense, indicates that recently, opinion C-279-2015 was issued, in which the administrative and judicial jurisprudence is analyzed, as well as the regulations relating to the subject. iv) Therefore, considers that the State has maintained that the provision whose legality is questioned must be interpreted harmoniously with the rest of the legal system, in light of the provisions of numerals 142 of Law No. 6043 and 145.4 of the Ley General de Administración Pública, so that by making the correct interpretation of it, it is not illegal but rather in accordance with the law, so the lawsuit filed against the State is improper.- IIIo.- ON THE CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 44 OF THE REGULATION TO THE LEY DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE. In the first instance, it must be taken as a starting point that article 42 of Law 6043 establishes –as relevant– that concessions in tourist areas require the approval of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and that if the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Legislative Assembly will be necessary. It is necessary to highlight that said provision was partially repealed, only as it refers to the fact that the Institute of Lands and Colonization (later named the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) was responsible for the approval of concessions granted in the other areas of the maritime terrestrial zone, since through article 82 of Law 9036 (in force since November 30, 2012), it was provided: “Repeal the obligations contemplated in Law No. 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, of March 2, 1977, in relation to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario” (highlighting not in original). At this point, it should be remembered that according to numeral 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the effects of administrative acts may be subject to effectiveness requirements, set by the same act or by the legal system, and that these effectiveness requirements will produce a retroactive effect to the date of the administrative act, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. Now, when the formal administrative conduct requires the approval of another entity or body, as long as such approval has not been granted, said conduct shall not be effective, nor may it be communicated, challenged, or executed (articles 140 and 141 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Consequently, it is contrary to the principles of the hierarchy of sources and legality, that in numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043, it is established –with the exception of the case of concessions granted in areas of the maritime terrestrial zone that are not of tourist suitability, nor that constitute islands or islets, as a consequence of the legal reform in force since November 30, 2012– that the collection of the fee be carried out immediately after the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and after the respective contract is signed between the municipal entity and the concessionaire, this is because said acts are not effective until the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Legislative Assembly approve the granted concession and the corresponding notification is communicated to the interested party (article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Likewise, the protocolization of documents recording the municipal agreement by which the concession is granted, the act of approval (when necessary), and the literal transcription of the contract (article 84 of the Regulation to Law 6043), must be registered in the General Registry of Concessions of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre –regardless of whether they are subject to approval or not– since according to the last paragraph of numeral 30 of Law 6043, “…These titles shall not affect third parties except from the date of their receipt or presentation in said Registry…”. Now, given that article 42 of Law 6043 was partially modified in a supervening manner in the terms indicated above, this Court considers that article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 is not illegal, to the extent that it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which implies that the fee may be collected by the municipal entity once the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and communicated to the interested party in the terms of article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. In cases where approval is not required (concessions in zones not declared as tourist, or on islands or islets), the fee will be effective and therefore, may be collected once the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the contract is signed between the Mayor and the concessionaire, based on the partial reform to article 42 of Law 6043 provided in numeral 82 of Law 9036, in force since November 30, 2012.

Without prejudice to the fact that registration in the National Concessions Registry of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (*Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre*)—regardless of whether the concession is subject to approval or not—is only for purposes of third parties (article 30, last paragraph of Article 30 of Law 6043). Once this judgment becomes final, it shall be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the State's expense, since it was the Executive Branch that enacted the regulatory provision whose conforming interpretation is ordered in this judgment *(article 130, subsection 3 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code)*.

IV.REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF THE COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE CANON FOR AN UNAPPROVED CONCESSION. Based on the analysis in the preceding considering clause, this Court finds that while it is true that numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 establishes that *“…*Underline*Once the concession is approved by the Municipal Council* it shall be communicated to the interested party, and a term of 30 business days shall be set for signing the contract and *depositing the amount corresponding to the first annuity of the canon in favor of the respective municipality*…”* (emphasis not in original); it is also true that, contrary to what the representative of the defendant Municipality claims, applying that regulatory provision to the specific case, in a literal, isolated manner and discordant with articles 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Law of Public Administration (*Ley General de la Administración Pública*), entails a manifest violation of the principles of legality and hierarchy of the sources of the legal order (numerals 6 and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration).

This Court considers that this circumstance is paradoxical given the content of the following formal actions emanating from the municipal entity itself, namely: A) Both in the original concession contract (clause fifteenth), and in the addendum to it (clause sixth) signed by the Municipal Mayor of Parrita and the plaintiff, it is established: i) Clause Fifteenth: *“…This concession shall be valid *and shall have all effects from the registration thereof in the General Concessions Registry*…”* (folios 40 to 36 of the administrative file; emphasis not in original). Clearly, without prejudice to the fact that registration in the National Concessions Registry is for purposes of third parties and not as indicated there*;* ii) Clause sixth: *“…The term of this concession is TWENTY years counted *from the date of approval by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo)*…”* (folios 108 to 101 of the administrative file; emphasis not in original).

• B)In addition to the foregoing, it is proven that the plaintiff has been unable to enjoy the usufruct in accordance with the coastal regulatory plan, of parcel 388 located in Playa Esterillos, which was granted in concession by the Municipal Council of Parrita for recreational residential use, and which was not approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute *(folios 31 to 29, 155 to 153, 148 to 127 of the administrative file)*, as the lawyer from the Legal Department of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the Municipality of Parrita, when answering the query submitted by the plaintiff via email on May 29, 2015, regarding the possibility of granting him a construction permit, if he eventually paid the total sum charged for the concession canon not approved by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute *(folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file)*, clearly indicated *“…Regarding *the granting of construction permits, they are granted* by the Urban Development department of the Municipality of Parrita, *once the concession is registered in the National Concessions Registry of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone of the National Registry, which is after the approval or endorsement that must be carried out by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute*…”* (folios 164 to 162 of the administrative file; 18 to 20 of the judicial file; emphasis not in original).
• C)Likewise, it is noteworthy that in view of the certification appearing on folio 160 of the administrative file, it is evident that file number 2478-2003, in which the plaintiff’s concession application was processed, *“…is duly archived in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department…”*, which is why *it is evident and manifestly contrary to law* that the Municipality of Parrita seeks to charge the plaintiff the annual canon amount from the year 2009 to 2016, which amounted to the sum of ¢9,848,640.00 (nine million eight hundred forty-eight thousand six hundred forty colones) *(images 164 to 166 of the virtual file as of the date of issuance of this judgment; folios 168 to 165, 119 to 117 of the administrative file)*, despite the fact that since May 23, 2014, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute did not approve the concession granted to the plaintiff by the Municipal Council of Parrita and that the file is archived as a result of that denial, as certified by the Secretary of the Municipal Council on July 2, 2014, and that the plaintiff has been unable to enjoy the usufruct of the concession.

Finally, this Court considers that the Municipality has also incurred a violation of numeral 10 of the General Law of Public Administration, *since it merely applied, in a literal, isolated and illegal manner, the provisions of article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 to the detriment of the claimant*, despite having the duty to interpret it in the manner that best guaranteed the realization of the public purpose it is aimed at, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual, taking into account, for this purpose, the other related norms and the nature and value of the conduct and facts to which it refers. This illegitimate omission has not only caused the filing of this plenary proceeding, but also forces this Court to interpret article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 in the terms set forth in considering clause III of this judgment, in order to avoid declaring the partial nullity of that regulatory provision. *Consequently, and for all the foregoing, this Court declares the absolute nullity of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Revenue and Collections Department of the Municipality of Parrita, and by connection (conexidad), of the official letter of September 18, 2015 from the Leasing Section of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter No. 1 of ordinary session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita*.

This implies that the Municipality of Parrita may charge the canon to the plaintiff, only when the Costa Rican Tourism Institute approves the concession, provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are remedied, namely: the presumed partial location of the parcel on lands of the State Natural Heritage; indeterminacy of the exact site where the concession parcel is located because the boundary markers do not coincide; the supposed invasion of a portion of the public area by one of the fences *(folios 148 to 127, 155 to 153 of the administrative file)*.

V. ON THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS AND DEFENSES

This Court concludes that the plaintiff has sufficient active standing (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding in accordance with article 10, subsection a) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, as the Municipality of Parrita seeks to charge him the canon for the period from the year 2009 to 2016, based on a literal, isolated, and illegal application of article 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043, despite the fact that the Costa Rican Tourism Institute did not approve the concession granted to him by the Municipal Council of Parrita. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the State and the Municipality of Parrita, as provided in subsection

• 1)of numeral 12 of the cited Code, since they are the authors of the conduct subject to the proceeding, specifically, the issuance of the Regulation to Law 6043 (State) and the collection requirements to the detriment of the plaintiff for the canon for the period from the years 2009 to 2016 (Municipality of Parrita). In turn, the interest remains current, as long as the questioned conduct continues to have effects on the plaintiff's legal sphere and requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds, based on all that is set forth in considering clauses III and IV of this judgment, that the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) raised by the State’s representative is rejected and the lawsuit filed by Jorge Alberto Jiménez Cordero against the Municipality of Parrita and the State is granted, in the following terms, *it being understood as denied whatever is not expressly indicated*:
• 1)It is declared that what is provided in numeral 44 of the Regulation to Law 6043 is not illegal, as long as it is interpreted in accordance with the provisions of numerals 42 of Law 6043 and 145 of the General Law of Public Administration, *which implies that the canon may be charged by the municipal entity once the concession is approved by the competent body or entity, and communicated to the interested party in the terms of article 140 of the General Law of Public Administration. Consequently, for cases in which approval is not required_ (concessions in areas declared as non-tourist, or on islands or islets), the canon will be effective and therefore, may be charged once the Municipal Council agrees to grant the concession and the contract is signed between the Mayor and the concessionaire, based on the partial reform of article 42 of Law 6043 established in numeral 82 of Law 9036, effective from November 30, 2012. Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the State's expense, since it was the Executive Branch that enacted the regulatory provision whose conforming interpretation is ordered in this judgment *(article 130, subsection 3 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code)*.
• 2)The absolute nullity of the collection requirement issued on November 26, 2013, by the Revenue and Collections Department of the Municipality of Parrita, and by connection (conexidad), of the official letter of September 18, 2015 from the Leasing Section of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Department of the Municipality of Parrita, and of agreement number 02, article three, matter No. 01 of ordinary session 005-2014 of January 27, 2014, adopted by the Municipal Council of Parrita, is declared.
• 3)The Municipality of Parrita is ordered not to charge the canon to the plaintiff until the Costa Rican Tourism Institute approves the concession, provided that the substantive defects that motivated its non-approval are remedied.-“

“IIo.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO. La parte ACTORA sostiene:

• 1)Alega que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, el cobro del canon que pretende la Municipalidad de Parrita, es improcedente, ya que la Concesión sobre la parcela solicitada no se aprobó por parte del ICT, en virtud de encontrarse en zona turística, de acuerdo con el Plan Regulador de Playa Esterillos. Indica que la aprobación por parte del ICT constituye un requisito sine qua non, para que el administrado pueda hacer uso y disfrute del bien solicitado en concesión, incluyendo el levantamiento de las construcciones que sean necesarias para el disfrute "residencial recreativo". Alega que sin la aprobación del ICT y posterior inscripción del Contrato de Concesión ante el Registro de Concesiones del Registro Nacional, le está vedado levantar una construcción en la parcela solicitada.
• 2)Señala que la Procuraduría General de la República, en el dictamen C-319-2008 del 12 de setiembre del 2008, concluyó que la aprobación del contrato de concesión por parte del ICT, es necesaria para que el mismo surta los efectos legales correspondientes, incluyendo el cobro del canon, que empezaría a cobrarse hasta que exista esa certeza jurídica de aprobación, previa comunicación al interesado. Sostiene que el cobro del canon que aquí se impugna se basa en una "lectura literal y aislada" del numeral 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 por parte de la Asesoría Legal de la Municipalidad de Parrita, lectura que lleva a una interpretación errada y aislada de lo que se quiso legislar.
• 3)Estima que el citado numeral contraviene el espíritu de la Ley 6043, ya que al particular le está vedado hacer uso de los bienes de dominio público sin la respectiva concesión otorgada conforme al ordenamiento jurídico; y en la especie, la concesión se considerará otorgada hasta tanto la misma sea aprobada por el ICT e inscrita ante el Registro de Concesiones. Tan es así, que en la cláusula sexta del Adendum al contrato de concesión suscrito el 13 de Diciembre de 2013, se establece: "El plazo de la presente concesión es de VEINTE años contados a partir de la fecha de aprobación del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, de conformidad con el Dictamen 319-2008 de la Procuraduría General de la República... ". En consecuencia, estima que si el plazo de la concesión empieza a correr a partir de la aprobación del Contrato de Concesión por parte del ICT, el cobro del canon que pretende hacer la Municipalidad de Parrita, es ilegal, ya que exigir el pago del canon a partir de la firma del contrato de concesión, sería legitimar un enriquecimiento ilícito por parte de aquella. Por su parte, la representante de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE PARRITA manifiesta que: a) Alega que el artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, no indica que la Municipalidad deberá esperar la aprobación o el refrendo del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, para proceder a realizar el cobro correspondiente al canon, pues por el contrario, establece que: "una vez aprobada la concesión por el Concejo" el interesado deberá depositar el importe correspondiente a la primera anualidad del canon. b) Sostiene que conforme al principio de legalidad, la Municipalidad no podría atribuirse potestades que no le corresponden suspendiendo o anulando el cobro del canon que la Ley autoriza al haber un Contrato vigente, ya que con ese actuar estaría contraviniendo lo indicado en el numeral 44 del reglamento a la Ley 6043. c) En consecuencia, manifiesta que se opone a la demanda presentada, donde se alega la improcedencia con respecto al cobro del CANON sobre una parcela situada en Playa Esterillas, Distrito Único, Cantón Parrita, Provincia de Puntarenas , con una constante de 1.089,4 7 m2, con vista en el plano catastrado P- 438163-81, para un uso Residencial Recreativo, autorizada según Acuerdo municipal número 05, Artículo tercero, Punto número 02, Asunto número 03, de la sesión ordinaria número 2157-2008, celebrada el veinticinco de agosto del 2008, ya que a su juicio, se ha observado lo dispuesto en la Ley 6043 y su reglamento. Por último, la representante del ESTADO, indica que: i) En la demanda interpuesta se pretende la declaratoria de ilegalidad del artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre porque, a criterio de la parte actora, el mismo resulta contrario a lo dispuesto en los numerales 42 de la Ley de Zona Marítimo Terrestre y 145.4 de la Ley General de Administración Pública, no obstante, en el desarrollo del apartado de la demanda denominado "Derecho" se indica claramente que lo que se alega como contrario a derecho es la interpretación que ha realizado la Municipalidad de Parrita del mismo, la cual la parte actora considera errada, literal y aislada del resto del ordenamiento jurídico. ii) Sostiene que el artículo 145 inciso 4 de la Ley General de Administración Pública establece que cuando un acto requiera aprobación de otro órgano, la eficacia de éste estará supeditada a la citada aprobación, por lo que, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el numeral 42 de la Ley 6043, la concesión de marras surtiría efectos hasta que haya sido aprobada por el ICT y no hasta que sea inscrita en el Registro, como indica la parte actora. iii) Considera que en cuanto al momento a partir del cual se debe realizar el cobro del canon en las concesiones de zona marítimo terrestre y la correcta interpretación que debe dársele al artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley N° 6043, la Procuraduría General de la República, ha emitido una serie de pronunciamientos que datan desde el 2000, creando una consistente línea de criterio al respecto. En este sentido, indica que recientemente, se emitió el dictamen C-279-2015, en el que se analiza la jurisprudencia administrativa y judicial, así como la normativa relativa al tema. iv) Por ende, considera que el Estado ha sostenido que la norma cuya legalidad se cuestiona, debe interpretarse de forma armónica con el resto del ordenamiento jurídico, a la luz de lo dispuesto en los numerales 142 de la Ley N° 6043 y 145.4 de la Ley General de Administración Pública, por lo que realizando la interpretación correcta del mismo éste no resulta ilegal sino conforme a derecho, por lo que la demanda interpuesta en contra del Estado resulta improcedente.- IIIo.- SOBRE LA INTERPRETACIÓN CONFORME DEL ARTÍCULO 44 DE REGLAMENTO A LA LEY DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE. En primera instancia, debe partirse de que el artículo 42 de la Ley 6043 establece –en lo que interesa- que las concesiones en las áreas turísticas requieren la aprobación del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, y que si la concesión se refiere a una isla o islote marítimos, o parte de las mismas, será necesaria la aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa. Es menester resaltar, que dicha norma fue derogada parcialmente, únicamente en cuanto se refiere, a que al Instituto de Tierras o Colonización (posteriormente denominado Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), le correspondía la aprobación de las concesiones otorgadas en las demás áreas de la zona marítimo terrestre, toda vez que mediante artículo 82 de la Ley 9036 (vigente desde el 30 de noviembre del 2012), se dispuso: “Deróguense las obligaciones contempladas en la Ley Nº 6043, Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, de 2 de marzo de 1977, en relación con el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario” (el resaltado no es del original). En este punto, cabe recordar que de acuerdo al numeral 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, los efectos de los actos administrativos podrán estar sujetos a requisitos de eficacia, fijados por el mismo acto o por el ordenamiento jurídico y, que esos requisitos de eficacia producirán un efecto retroactivo a la fecha del acto administrativo, salvo disposición expresa en contrario. Ahora bien, cuando la conducta formal administrativa requiera aprobación de otro ente u órgano, mientras ésta no se haya dado, aquella no será eficaz, ni podrá comunicarse, impugnarse ni ejecutarse (artículos 140 y 141 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). En consecuencia, resulta contrario a los principios de jerarquía de las fuentes y de legalidad, que en el numeral 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, se establezca –con excepción del supuesto de concesiones dadas en áreas de la zona marítimo terrestre que no sean de aptitud turística, ni que constituyan islas o islotes, a consecuencia de la reforma legal vigente desde el 30 de noviembre del 2012- que el cobro del canon se realice inmediatamente después de que el Concejo Municipal acuerde otorgar la concesión y de que se firme el contrato respectivo entre el ente municipal y el concesionario, ello por cuanto, dichos actos no son eficaces hasta tanto el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo o la Asamblea Legislativa aprueben la concesión otorgada y se comunique lo correspondiente al interesado (artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). Asimismo, la protocolización de piezas en que conste el acuerdo municipal en que se otorga la concesión, el acto de aprobación (cuando sea necesaria) y la transcripción literal del contrato (artículo 84 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043), debe ser inscrita en el Registro General de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre –independientemente que estén sujetos o no a aprobación-, ya que de acuerdo al párrafo último del numeral 30 de la Ley 6043, “…Esos títulos no perjudicarán a terceros sino desde la fecha de su recibo o presentación en dicho Registro…”. Ahora bien, dado que de manera sobrevenida se modificó de manera parcial el artículo 42 de la Ley de la 6043 en los términos antes indicados, considera este Tribunal que no resulta ilegal el artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, en el tanto se interprete conforme a lo dispuesto en los numerales 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, lo cual implica, que el canon podrá ser cobrado por el ente municipal a partir de que se apruebe la concesión por el órgano o el ente competente, y se comunique al interesado en los términos del artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En los supuestos en que no se requiera aprobación (concesiones en zonas no declaradas como turísticas, o sobre islas o islotes), el canon será eficaz y por ende, podrá ser cobrado una vez que el Concejo Municipal acuerde otorgar la concesión y se proceda a firmar el contrato entre el Alcalde y el concesionario, con fundamento en la reforma parcial al artículo 42 de la Ley 6043 dispuesta en el numeral 82 de la Ley 9036, vigente desde el 30 de noviembre del 2012. Sin perjuicio de que la inscripción en el Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre –independientemente que la concesión esté sujeta o no a aprobación-, sólo es para efectos de terceros (artículo 30 último párrafo del artículo 30 de la Ley 6043). Una vez que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza, será publicada íntegramente en el diario oficial La Gaceta, con cargo al Estado, pues fue el Poder Ejecutivo el que dictó la norma reglamentaria cuya interpretación conforme se dispone en esta sentencia (artículo 130 inciso 3 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo).

IVo.- EN CUANTO A LA NULIDAD ABSOLUTA DE LOS REQUERIMIENTOS DE COBRO REALIZADOS POR LA MUNICIPALIDAD DEMANDADA PARA QUE EL ACTOR PAGUE EL CANON DE UNA CONCESIÓN NO APROBADA. Conforme a lo analizado en el considerando anterior, estima este Tribunal que si bien es cierto, el numeral 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 establece que “…Una vez aprobada la concesión por el Concejo Municipal se le comunicará al interesado, y se le fijará un término de 30 días hábiles para firmar el contrato y depositar el importe correspondiente a la primer anualidad del canon a favor de la municipalidad respectiva…” (el resaltado no es del original); también lo es, que contrario a lo que afirma la representante de la Municipalidad demandada, aplicar esa disposición reglamentaria al caso concreto, de manera literal aislada y discordante con los artículos 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, implica una violación manifiesta a los principios de legalidad y de jerarquía de las fuentes del ordenamiento jurídico (numerales 6 y 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública).

Considera este Tribunal que dicha circunstancia, resulta paradójica con el contenido de las siguientes conductas formales emanadas del propio ente municipal, a saber: A) Tanto en el contrato original de concesión (cláusula décima quinta), como en el adendum al mismo (cláusula sexta) suscritos por el Alcalde Municipal de Parrita y el actor, se establece: i) Cláusula Décima Quinta: "...Esta concesión será válida y surtirá todos los efectos a partir de la inscripción de la misma en el Registro General de Concesiones..." (folios 40 a 36 del expediente administrativo; el resaltado no es del original). Claro está, sin perjuicio de que la inscripción en el Registro Nacional de Concesiones, es para efectos de terceros y no como allí se indica; ii) Cláusula sexta: "...El plazo de la presente concesión es de VEINTE años contados a partir de la fecha de aprobación por parte del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo..." (folios 108 a 101 del expediente administrativo; el resaltado no es del original).

• B)Aunado a lo anterior, se tiene por acreditado que el demandante no ha podido usufructuar conforme al plan regulador costero, la parcela 388 situada en Playa Esterillos, que le fue dada en concesión por el Concejo Municipal de Parrita para uso residencial recreativo, y que no fue aprobada por el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (folios 31 a 29, 155 a 153, 148 a 127 del expediente administrativo), pues la abogada del Departamento Legal de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre de la Municipalidad de Parrita, al contestar la consulta remitida por el actor mediante correo electrónico el 29 de mayo el 2015, respecto a la posibilidad de que le otorgaran un permiso de construcción, si eventualmente cancelaba la totalidad de la suma cobrada por concepto de canon de concesión no aprobada por el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (folios 164 a 162 del expediente administrativo; 18 a 20 del expediente judicial), claramente indicó “…Respecto al otorgamiento de los permisos de construcción son otorgados por parte del departamento de Desarrollo Urbano de la Municipalidad de Parrita, una vez que la concesión se encuentre inscrita en el Registro Nacional de Concesiones de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre del Registro Nacional, lo cual es posterior a la aprobación o refrendo que debe realizar el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo…” (folios 164 a 162 del expediente administrativo; 18 a 20 del expediente judicial; el resaltado no es del original).
• C)Asimismo, cabe destacar que con vista en la certificación que consta a folio 160 del expediente administrativo, se desprende que el planteada por el actor, “…se encuentra debidamente archivado en el Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre…”, razón por la cual, resulta evidente y manifiestamente contrario a derecho, que la Municipalidad de Parrita pretenda cobrar al demandante el monto anual por concepto de canon desde el año 2009 hasta el 2016, que ascendía a la suma de ¢9.848.640,00 (nueve millones ochocientos cuarenta y ocho mil seiscientos cuarenta colones) (imágenes 164 a 166 del expediente virtual a la fecha de dictado de esta sentencia; folios 168 a 165, 119 a 117 del expediente administrativo), a pesar de que desde el 23 de mayo del 2014, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo no aprobó la concesión otorgada al actor por parte del Concejo Municipal de Parrita y de que el expediente se encuentra archivado a consecuencia de esa denegatoria, según certificó la Secretaria del Concejo Municipal el 2 de julio del 2014, y de que el actor no ha podido usufructuar la concesión.

Por último, este Tribunal estima que la Municipalidad también ha incurrido en una violación a lo dispuesto en el numeral 10 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, toda vez que se limitó a aplicar de manera literal, aislada e ilegal lo dispuesto en el artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 en perjuicio del accionante, a pesar de que tenía el deber de interpretarla de la forma que mejor garantizara la realización del fin público a que se dirige, dentro del respeto debido a los derechos e intereses del particular, tomando en cuenta para tal efecto, las otras normas conexas y la naturaleza y valor de la conducta y los hechos a que se refiere. Dicha omisión ilegítima no sólo ha provocado la interposición de este proceso de conocimiento, sino además, que este Tribunal deba interpretar el artículo 44 del Reglamento a Ley 6043 en los términos expuestos en el considerando III de esta sentencia, a fin de no declarar la nulidad parcial de esa norma reglamentaria.

En consecuencia y por todo lo emitido el 26 de noviembre del 2013. por el Departamento de Rentas y Cobranzas de la Municipalidad de Parrita, y por conexidad, del oficio del 18 de setiembre del 2015 de la Sección de Arriendo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre de la Municipalidad de Parrita, y del acuerdo número 02, artículo tercero, asunto Nº1 de la sesión ordinaria 005-2014 del 27 de enero del 2014, adoptado por el Concejo Municipal de Parrita. Ello implica, que la Municipalidad de Parrita podrá cobrar el canon al demandante, hasta que el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, apruebe la concesión, siempre y cuando se subsanen los defectos de fondo que motivaron la no aprobación de la misma, a saber: presunta ubicación parcial de la parcela en terrenos de Patrimonio Natural del Estado; indeterminación del sitio exacto en que se ubica la parcela objeto de concesión porque no coinciden los mojones; supuesta invasión de una porción del área pública de una de las cercas (folios 148 a 127, 155 a 153 del expediente administrativo).

Vo.- SOBRE LOS PRESUPUESTOS Y EXCEPCIONES DE FONDO. Este Tribunal llega a la conclusión de que el actor cuenta con suficiente legitimación activa para participar en este proceso conforme al artículo 10 inciso a) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, ya que la Municipalidad de Parrita pretende cobrarle el canon del período comprendido entre el año 2009 al 2016, con base en una aplicación literal, aislada e ilegal del artículo 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, a pesar de que el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo no aprobó la concesión que le fue otorgada por el Concejo Municipal de Parrita. Además, la acción se dirige correctamente contra el Estado y la Municipalidad de Parrita, tal y como lo dispone el inciso

• 1)del numeral 12 del citado Código, dado que son los autores de la conducta objeto del proceso, específicamente, del dictado del Reglamento a la Ley 6043 (Estado) y de los requerimientos de cobro en perjuicio del actor por concepto de canon del período comprendido entre los años 2009 a 2016 (Municipalidad de Parita). Por su parte, el interés se mantiene actual, en el tanto las conductas cuestionadas siguen surtiendo efectos en la esfera jurídica del demandante y requiere de una resolución jurisdiccional que la resuelva. Finalmente, encuentra este órgano colegiado que por todo lo expuesto en los considerandos III y IV de esta sentencia, se rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho planteada por la representante del Estado y se declara con lugar la demanda interpuesta por Jorge Alberto Jiménez Cordero contra la Municipalidad de Parrita y el Estado, en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose por denegada en lo que no se indique de manera expresa:
• 1)Se declara que no resulta ilegal lo dispuesto en el numeral 44 del Reglamento a la Ley 6043, en el tanto se interprete conforme a lo dispuesto en los numerales 42 de la Ley 6043 y 145 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, lo cual implica, que el canon podrá ser cobrado por el ente municipal a partir de que se apruebe la concesión por el órgano o el ente competente, y se comunique al interesado en los términos del artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En consecuencia, para los supuestos en que no se requiera aprobación (concesiones en zonas declaradas como no turísticas, o sobre islas o islotes), el canon será eficaz y por ende, podrá ser cobrado una vez que el Concejo Municipal acuerde otorgar la concesión y se proceda a firmar el contrato entre el Alcalde y el concesionario, con fundamento en la reforma parcial al artículo 42 de la Ley 6043 dispuesta en el numeral 82 de la Ley 9036, vigente desde el 30 de noviembre del 2012. A partir de que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza, deberá ser publicada íntegramente en el diario oficial La Gaceta, con cargo al Estado, pues fue el Poder Ejecutivo el que dictó la norma reglamentaria cuya interpretación conforme se dispone en esta sentencia (artículo 130 inciso 3 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo).
• 2)Se declara la nulidad absoluta del requerimiento de cobro emitido el 26 de noviembre del 2013, por el Departamento de Rentas y Cobranzas de la Municipalidad de Parrita, y por conexidad, del oficio del 18 de setiembre del 2015 de la Sección de Arriendo del Departamento de Zona Marítimo Terrestre de la Municipalidad de Parrita, y del acuerdo número 02, artículo tercero, asunto Nº 01 de la sesión ordinaria 005-2014 del 27 de enero del 2014, adoptado por el Concejo Municipal de Parrita.
• 3)Se ordena a la Municipalidad de Parrita, no cobrar el canon al demandante, hasta que el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, apruebe la concesión, siempre y cuando se subsanen los defectos de fondo que motivaron la no aprobación de la misma.-“