← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00112-2020 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI · 2020
OutcomeResultado
The resolution lays the conceptual groundwork on the use of public domain goods, but the available excerpt does not reveal the final decision on the refund of water-use fees.La resolución sienta las bases conceptuales sobre el uso de bienes demaniales, pero el fragmento disponible no revela la decisión final sobre la procedencia de la devolución de los cánones de agua.
SummaryResumen
The resolution of the Contentious-Administrative Court, Section VI, examines a lawsuit filed by a hydroelectric company against the Costa Rican State. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that water-use fees are only due when there is effective use of the water resource to generate electricity and that, since such use did not occur, the fees paid must be refunded. The Court outlines the distinction between general common use and exclusive private use of public domain goods, clarifying that private use grants an administrative real right but does not alter the public nature of the asset. However, the available excerpt only lays this conceptual groundwork and does not reveal the final ruling on the plaintiff's claims.La resolución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección VI, analiza una demanda interpuesta por una empresa hidroeléctrica contra el Estado costarricense. La actora solicita que se declare que el canon de agua solo es exigible cuando hay un aprovechamiento efectivo del recurso hídrico para generar electricidad y que, al no haber realizado ese aprovechamiento, debe ordenarse la devolución de los cánones pagados. El Tribunal expone la distinción entre el uso común general y el uso privativo de los bienes demaniales, aclarando que el uso privativo confiere un derecho real administrativo exclusivo, pero no altera la naturaleza pública del bien. Sin embargo, el fragmento disponible se limita a sentar estas bases conceptuales y no revela la decisión final sobre las pretensiones de la demandante.
Key excerptExtracto clave
VII.- On the use of public domain goods. Before examining the legality of the claims made and for a better understanding of what will be decided, the Court considers it appropriate to briefly refer to, at least, general common use and private use of public domain goods. The former is that which corresponds, equally and indistinctly, to all citizens; so that use by some does not prevent use by other interested parties. It is a mode of utilization that, as a general rule, is considered consistent with the usual purpose and function of the public domain good. On the other hand, private use of the public domain by individuals is that which determines the occupation or use of a portion of the public domain, in an exclusive and exclusionary manner; so that it limits or prevents any other use or exploitation of that part by a third party. This particularity means that private use over a public domain good has the nature of an administrative real right, so that the holder is granted a series of powers related to the exclusive occupation, use or exploitation of the public domain good. The foregoing, even though the good will continue to form part of the public domain, regardless of the exclusivity of its use.VII.- Sobre la utilización de los bienes demaniales. De previo al examen de legalidad de las pretensiones que se formulan y para una mejor comprensión de lo que se resolverá, el Tribunal estima conveniente referirse brevemente, al menos, al uso común general y al privativo, de los bienes de dominio público. El primero, es el que corresponde, por igual y de forma indistinta, a todos los ciudadanos; de modo que que el uso por unos, no impide el de los demás interesados. Se trata de una modalidad de utilización que, por regla general, se considera conforme al destino y función usual del bien demanial. Por su parte, el uso privativo del dominio público por los particulares es el que determina la ocupación o utilización de una porción del dominio público, de forma exclusiva y excluyente; de modo que limita o impide cualquier otro uso o aprovechamiento de dicha parte, por un tercero. Esta particularidad hace que el uso privativo sobre un bien de dominio público tenga una naturaleza de derecho real administrativo, de modo que se confieren al titular una serie de facultades relacionadas con la ocupación, utilización o aprovechamiento exclusivo del bien demanial. Lo anterior, aún y cuando el bien seguirá formando parte del demanio público, con independencia de la exclusividad del uso.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"El uso común general es el que corresponde, por igual y de forma indistinta, a todos los ciudadanos; de modo que el uso por unos, no impide el de los demás interesados."
"General common use is that which corresponds, equally and indistinctly, to all citizens; so that use by some does not prevent use by other interested parties."
Considerando VII
"El uso común general es el que corresponde, por igual y de forma indistinta, a todos los ciudadanos; de modo que el uso por unos, no impide el de los demás interesados."
Considerando VII
"El uso privativo del dominio público por los particulares es el que determina la ocupación o utilización de una porción del dominio público, de forma exclusiva y excluyente."
"Private use of the public domain by individuals is that which determines the occupation or use of a portion of the public domain, in an exclusive and exclusionary manner."
Considerando VII
"El uso privativo del dominio público por los particulares es el que determina la ocupación o utilización de una porción del dominio público, de forma exclusiva y excluyente."
Considerando VII
"Esta particularidad hace que el uso privativo sobre un bien de dominio público tenga una naturaleza de derecho real administrativo."
"This particularity means that private use over a public domain good has the nature of an administrative real right."
Considerando VII
"Esta particularidad hace que el uso privativo sobre un bien de dominio público tenga una naturaleza de derecho real administrativo."
Considerando VII
Full documentDocumento completo
"III.- Object of the proceeding. The plaintiff files this civil public treasury proceeding, formulating two declaratory claims so that the judgment establishes that, in essence, in relation to the concession granted to it for the use of hydraulic or hydroelectric forces, the taxable event for the water canon (canon de agua) is the effective use (aprovechamiento efectivo) of the public domain in the generation of electricity; as well as that it has not carried out the effective use of the public domain (water resource) that was granted under concession, and that, therefore, the collection of the canons that have been demanded was not appropriate, which can only be requested when the public domain is effectively used, according to the terms of the second clause (cláusula segunda) of the aforementioned concession contract. These declaratory requests serve as support for two claims for compensatory damages directed, in essence, to ordering the State to refund the sums paid for canons and that on said sum, for the refund of canons, the legal interest be recognized, pursuant to article 1163 of the Civil Code, from the date on which the payments were made until the effective refund thereof. It should be noted that during its closing arguments, the State representative formulated a novel defense argument, in which she stated that if the plaintiff maintained that the obligation to pay the canon derived from the contract, it should have requested that the respective clause be declared null, which did not happen. This Tribunal has held that new arguments formulated during closing arguments, on which, in this case, the plaintiff could not exercise the right of defense, are untimely and should not be analyzed, given that they were not subjected to adversarial proceedings or the right of defense of the opposing party. Therefore, the legality review that the Tribunal will conduct will not cover the allegation referred to by the State representative. Given the diverse statements provided by the parties, for what is considered better order, the thematic axes raised by the plaintiff will be addressed, as well as the arguments of the defendant entity, in order to avoid unnecessary reiterations, with the due analysis, of course, of everything argued [...]
VII.- On the use of public domain assets (bienes demaniales). Prior to the legality review of the claims that are formulated and for a better understanding of what will be resolved, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to briefly refer, at least, to general common use and to exclusive use (uso privativo) of public domain assets. The former is that which corresponds, equally and indistinctly, to all citizens; such that the use by some does not prevent that of other interested parties. It is a modality of utilization that, as a general rule, is considered in accordance with the usual purpose and function of the public domain asset. For its part, the exclusive use of the public domain by private individuals is that which determines the occupation or utilization of a portion of the public domain, in an exclusive and exclusionary manner; such that it limits or prevents any other use or exploitation of said part by a third party. This particularity means that the exclusive use of a public domain asset has the nature of an administrative real right (derecho real administrativo), such that the holder is granted a series of powers related to the occupation, utilization, or exclusive exploitation of the public domain asset. The foregoing, even though the asset will continue to form part of the public domain, regardless of the exclusivity of the use [...]." The above, even though the property will continue to form part of the public domain (demanio público), regardless of the exclusivity of the use [...]".
***III.- Purpose of the proceeding.*** The plaintiff files this civil treasury proceeding, formulating two declaratory claims so that the judgment establishes that, in essence, regarding the concession that was granted to it for the use of hydraulic or hydroelectric forces, the taxable event for the water charge (canon de agua) is constituted by the effective use of the public domain (demanio público) in the generation of electricity; as well as that it has not made effective use of the conceded public domain (water resource), and that therefore, the collection of the charges that have been demanded was not applicable, which could only be requested when the public domain was effectively used, according to the terms of the second clause of the aforementioned concession contract. These declaratory requests serve as the basis for two claims for compensatory relief directed, in essence, at ordering the State to return the sums paid for charges and that, on said sum for the return of charges, legal interest be recognized, in accordance with section 1163 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), from the date the payments were made until their effective return. It should be noted that during her closing arguments, the state representative formulated a novel defense argument, in which she stated that if the plaintiff maintained that the obligation to pay the charge derived from the contract, it should have requested that the respective clause be declared null, which did not happen. This Tribunal has held that new arguments formulated during closing arguments and on which, in this case, the plaintiff could not exercise its right of defense, are untimely and should not be analyzed, given that they were not subjected to adversarial proceedings or the counterparty's right of defense. Therefore, the legality review that the Tribunal will carry out will not encompass the allegation referred to by the state representative. Given the various statements provided by the parties, for what is considered better order, the thematic axes raised by the plaintiff will be addressed, as well as the arguments of the defendant entity, in order to avoid unnecessary reiterations, with due analysis, of course, of everything argued [...]
***VII.- Regarding the use of public domain property (bienes demaniales).*** Prior to the legality review of the claims being formulated, and for a better understanding of what will be resolved, the Tribunal considers it convenient to briefly refer, at least, to the general common use and the private use of public domain property (bienes de dominio público). The former is that which corresponds, equally and indistinctly, to all citizens; such that use by some does not impede use by the other interested parties. It is a modality of use that, as a general rule, is considered in accordance with the usual purpose and function of the public domain property (bien demanial).
For its part, the exclusive use of public domain by private individuals is that which determines the occupation or use of a portion of the public domain, in an exclusive and exclusionary manner; so that it limits or prevents any other use or enjoyment of that part by a third party. This particularity means that the exclusive use over a public domain asset has the nature of an administrative real right (derecho real administrativo), such that a series of powers related to the exclusive occupation, use, or enjoyment of the demanial asset are conferred upon the holder. This is so even though the asset will continue to form part of the public demesne (demanio público), regardless of the exclusivity of the use [...]."
"III.- Objeto del proceso. La parte actora interpone este proceso civil de hacienda formulando dos pretensiones declarativas a efectos de que en sentencia se establezca que, en lo medular, en relación con la concesión que le fue otorgada para el aprovechamiento de las fuerzas hidráulicas o hidroeléctricas, el hecho generador del canon de agua lo constituye el aprovechamiento efectivo del demanio público en la generación de electricidad; así como que ella no ha realizado el aprovechamiento efectivo del demanio público (recurso hídrico), concesionado y que, por lo tanto, no era procedente el cobro los cánones que se le han exigido, las cuales sólo se podrán solicitar cuando se utilizara efectivamente el demanio, según los términos de la cláusula segunda del contrato de concesión en mención. Estos pedimentos declarativos sirven de sustento dos pretensiones de condena indemnizatoria dirigidas, en lo medular, a que se ordene al Estado la devolución de las sumas pagadas por concepto de cánones y que sobre dicha suma, por concepto de devolución de cánones, se reconozca el interés legal, conforme al numeral 1163 del Código Civil, desde la fecha en que se realizaron los pagos y hasta la devolución efectiva de la misma. Cabe señalar que durante sus conclusiones, la representante estatal formuló un argumento de defensa novedoso, en el cual expuso que si la accionante sostenía que la obligación de pagar el canon derivaba del contrato, tenía que haber solicitado que se declarara la nulidad de la cláusula respectiva, lo cual no sucedió. Este Tribunal ha sostenido que los argumentos nuevos que se formulen durante las conclusiones y sobre los cuales, en este caso, la parte actora no pudo ejercer el derecho de defensa, resultan extemporáneos y no deben ser analizados, dado que no fueron sometidos al contradictorio ni al derecho de defensa de la contraparte. Por ende, el examen de legalidad que efectuará el Tribunal no abarcará la alegación referida por parte la representante estatal. Dadas las diversas manifestaciones que aportan las partes, para lo que se considera un mejor orden, se abordarán los ejes temáticos que plantea la demandante, así como las argumentaciones de la entidad accionada, a fin de evitar reiteraciones innecesarias, con el debido análisis, claro está, de todo lo argüido [...]
VII.- Sobre la utilización de los bienes demaniales. De previo al examen de legalidad de las pretensiones que se formulan y para una mejor comprensión de lo que se resolverá, el Tribunal estima conveniente referirse brevemente, al menos, al uso común general y al privativo, de los bienes de dominio público. El primero, es el que corresponde, por igual y de forma indistinta, a todos los ciudadanos; de modo que que el uso por unos, no impide el de los demás interesados. Se trata de una modalidad de utilización que, por regla general, se considera conforme al destino y función usual del bien demanial. Por su parte, el uso privativo del dominio público por los particulares es el que determina la ocupación o utilización de una porción del dominio público, de forma exclusiva y excluyente; de modo que limita o impide cualquier otro uso o aprovechamiento de dicha parte, por un tercero. Esta particularidad hace que el uso privativo sobre un bien de dominio público tenga una naturaleza de derecho real administrativo, de modo que se confieren al titular una serie de facultades relacionadas con la ocupación, utilización o aprovechamiento exclusivo del bien demanial. Lo anterior, aún y cuando el bien seguirá formando parte del demanio público, con independencia de la exclusividad del uso [...]".
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.