Constitutionality of the unloading credit for foreign tuna vesselsConstitucionalidad del crédito de descarga para atuneros extranjeros

*140133310007CO* Res. No. 2017-011405 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours and sixteen minutes on the nineteenth of July of two thousand seventeen.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by [Name 001], identity card [Value 001], in his capacity as legal representative of [Name 002], legal identity number [Value 002], seeking a declaration that ARTICLE 11 OF EXECUTIVE DECREE No. 37386 OF JULY 9, 2012 is unconstitutional. Also appearing in the proceeding were the representative of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the representative of the Costa Rican Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture -INCOPESCA-.

WHEREAS:

1. 1By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 10:36 a.m. on August 22, 2014, the petitioner requests in summary that the unconstitutionality of Article 11 of Executive Decree No. 37386 of July 9, 2012 be declared. The rule is challenged insofar as it establishes the recognition of credits against the payment of fees for fishing licenses, which constitutes a subsidy for foreign tuna vessels that offload their product in national territory; these are not vessels belonging to small national businesspersons, but rather giant machines that extract a large quantity of resources from our seas, for which they pay a very low fee of one hundred fifty dollars per metric ton, when they do not land the tuna in Costa Rican territory and, without any reason, a payment credit is recognized to them, with which the national treasury receives nothing from the exploitation of the nation's hydrobiological resources and fosters overexploitation of the marine resource.
2. 2In order to substantiate the standing he holds to bring this action of unconstitutionality, he points out that it arises from collective interests (intereses difusos) regarding marine resources and the interest in protecting the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment for all citizens.
3. 3By resolution at 8:00 a.m. on September 5, 2014 (visible on folio 024 of the case file), the action was admitted, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Costa Rican Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture –INCOPESCA-.
4. 4The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in numbers 189, 190, and 191 of the Judicial Gazette, on October 2, 3, and 6, 2004 (folio 075 of the case file).
5. 5The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic rendered its report. It states that: Regarding standing: He has it due to the collective interest in the protection of natural resources, recognized by this Chamber through Decision 5593-2012. Regarding the merits of the matter: In relation to Article 11 of the Regulation for the Use of the Purse Seine Tuna Fishing Capacity Recognized to Costa Rica within the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, an interpretation consistent with the Constitution and the Law of the Sea is required. The analysis of the rule cannot be carried out separately, in the first instance because it has a close relationship with Article 10 of the same regulation, insofar as the latter establishes the amount to be paid for the annual right when the authorization or temporary license for fishing capacity is held. In this sense, it is clear that the credit operates against the payment of said license, which in accordance with Article 5 of the INCOPESCA Law, INCOPESCA is authorized to extend, suspend, cancel, and even grant incentives.That is to say, INCOPESCA, by express legal rule, is authorized to extend, suspend, cancel fishing, marine hunting, and boat construction permits, as well as licenses and concessions for production in the field of aquaculture, to individuals and legal entities that request them and to establish the amounts to be charged for licenses, as well as to regulate and manage the subsidies that the State assigns to the fisheries and aquaculture sector. This rule must be integrated with Articles 2, subsection 20, 7, and 49 of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law, all of which reinforce the competence of INCOPESCA to create, grant, cancel, control, and establish the amounts to be charged for the fishing licenses it deems necessary. From the foregoing, it follows that there is no violation of the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), since, as has been reiterated, the regulatory framework for the activity is complex and is established in a large number of rules, from whose integration it follows that the regulation in its entirety develops a power legally granted to INCOPESCA, it being the case that the license or authorization regulated by Decree 37386-MAG technically cannot be considered a tax and, in the same sense, the credit regulated in Article 11 does not constitute an exemption.It adds that the license is the administrative act that enables the individual to carry out the respective activity and that its exercise and granting in this particular case is supported by the legal rule, which authorizes its regulation, considering the complexity of the subject and the constant change generated in the field, to be developed by regulatory rule by express legal referral regarding its granting process, without this being able to be considered a violation of the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva legal), since this regulatory development, even in tax matters, has been endorsed by this Constitutional Court –Decisions 2001-06641 and 2004-05015- so it is reiterated, the procedure for granting permits or temporary licenses for purse seine tuna fishing capacity does not, in this particular case, violate the principle of legality. In the same sense, the credit regulated in Article 11 is not an exemption, but rather an incentive that, as a matter of principle, is not unconstitutional nor contrary to the Law of the Sea, but rather finds its basis in the powers the State has to protect its marine resources.Regarding the alleged environmental and economic damages arising from the activity carried out by the fisheries and which, in the opinion of the petitioner, are increased by the credit regulated in Article 11 of Regulation 37386-MAG. In accordance with the rule itself, specifically numeral 13, these resources coming from the collection of the annual rights for the use of the tuna fishing capacity established in this Regulation shall be exclusively destined to finance the fulfillment of the purposes and objectives established by the Law for INCOPESCA, especially to finance the development and promotion of tuna and related species fisheries and the country's participation in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and other international forums of interest for fisheries and aquaculture, as well as to contribute to the application and implementation of the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Development Plan, specifically to improve national scientific capacity and consolidate the human and technical resource with academic training in fisheries research and management.An annual percentage of 15% of the total resources generated by the allocation of tuna fishing capacity shall be destined by INCOPESCA to form a fund for competitive resources for the development of research projects in fisheries matters, which the country's public universities may access. In relation to the alleged environmental damage, as established in the report rendered within case file 14-11148-0007-CO, it is clear that the State has the express obligation to ensure the conservation, protection, and sustainable development of hydrobiological resources –see Articles 1, 8, 5.h, 5.g of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law. In express relation to tuna fishing, the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law dedicates a special regime to it, established in accordance with Article 49, whose exercise or practice requires a fishing license issued exclusively for that purpose, it must also have a temporary offloading permit or license from the Executive Branch and pay the corresponding right, which also ensures that a single vessel will not solely consume the purse seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country, but rather said capacity must be distributed proportionally among the purse seine net vessels.When it concerns licenses for foreign-flagged vessels, they are granted if they register before INCOPESCA –a rule developed in Decree 37386-MAG, Article 7, see Decision 10484-2004-. That is to say, it has been understood that this Article 7, insofar as it allows tuna fishing by foreign vessels, constitutes a legitimate exercise of the powers that the Law of the Sea recognizes to the State of Costa Rica, notwithstanding rules such as those contained in Decree 37386-MAG which serve to ensure that the purse seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country is not exceeded, and which also contain incentives that seek to guarantee local supply. According to Article 60 of the Fisheries Law, tuna fishing may be carried out in the exclusive economic zone of Costa Rica. The Law of the Sea clearly establishes that States have the right to impose on vessels fishing in their jurisdictional waters, including the exclusive economic zone, the obligation to offload part or all of their catch in a national port; this obligation may cover foreign-flagged vessels –see Article 62.4.h of the Convention on the Law of the Sea-.It is notable that expressly, the Law of the Sea imposes on the State of Costa Rica a duty to determine the allowable catch in the exclusive economic zone based on technical, reliable, and up-to-date criteria to ensure the conservation and restoration of species subject to fishing, including tuna. This is implicit in Article 6 of the Constitution, since it is clear that excessive or irrational exploitation of these resources would constitute a violation of sovereignty rights and an illegitimate impact on natural resources. In summary, from the analysis carried out, it clearly follows that the country has an obligation to ensure the conservation and proper management of living marine resources, and that in the case of purse seine tuna, there are regulations that guarantee the exercise of controls over the activity for these purposes and that impose on the State the analysis of the conditions under which the activity is carried out so that the purse seine tuna fishing capacity limit authorized for the country is not exceeded.Likewise, it is the State's power to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus preventing the totality of the extracted resource from being used abroad. In other words, contrary to what the petitioner considers, rules such as the one challenged seek to ensure that maritime resources are utilized in the country and that there is no unbridled plundering of them, and also allow for cross-checks of information that enable the State, through the various competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight. Based on the foregoing, this Advisory Body concludes that Article 11 of Regulation Number 37386-MAG, per se, is not unconstitutional.
6. 6Walter Cruz Sandoval renders his report, in his capacity as Interim President of the Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture and states: The petitioner makes a serious error of interpretation and reading, regarding the purpose of the executive decree being challenged, since it is not aimed at granting fishing licenses to foreign vessels, but rather for the allocation of fishing quotas, which Costa Rica has as a State Party to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, IATTC, without this action meaning that a license is granted to fish for tuna in our jurisdictional waters. The basic principle of the questioned credit was to stimulate said vessels that can catch tuna anywhere in the Eastern Pacific Ocean –EPO-, within the guidelines of the IATTC, to offload the caught product to be processed by national industries and thereby additionally stimulate the business sector, the creation of employment sources in areas that socially require this stimulus, such as the province of Puntarenas.The capture of the tuna quota assigned per vessel must pay a fee of $150.00 per metric ton, where it is true that to date, these are foreign vessels, but this has justification in the sense that Costa Rica has not nationalized a single vessel dedicated to catching tuna with purse seine nets, besides which it must also respect the principles of responsible fishing determined by the IATTC, to guarantee the sustainability of the tuna fishery product referred to in the IATTC guidelines and provisions. The referred Article 11 of the questioned decree, could apparently exceed its scope. By addressing an issue that might be proper to a Law of the Republic, according to the petitioner's perspective, however, to date the rule had not been questioned and has done nothing but bring benefits to the State for the fee charged for the tuna quota. Therefore, in compliance with Article 50 of the Political Constitution, it is that the scope of the challenged decree is established, without this meaning that we should harm our interests as a State in seeking to improve the State's finances, by assigning tuna quotas, since no one could affirm that the tuna resource existing in the EPO is exclusive to Costa Rica, being a highly migratory resource, therefore it acquires the nationality of the vessel that catches it in waters outside the exclusive economic zone, so what the petitioner affirmed regarding the violation of numeral 50 of the Political Constitution is not acceptable.We cannot accept the arguments, regarding the reason for challenging the rule being the overexploitation of the resource. The IATTC studies, on the sustainability of the resource, indicate that precisely catch quotas have been assigned per country, in order to guarantee the sustainable development of the tuna fishing fleet operating in the EPO. In any case, if the action brought against the questioned numeral were to succeed, Costa Rica's disposition to utilize the tuna quota to which it is entitled in the EPO could not be affected, since it would still be assigned, logically without granting the credit benefit that Article 11 of the challenged decree grants. The challenged rule has not been issued by INCOPESCA, but rather is an expression of the will of the Executive Branch through an executive decree, therefore we could not quantify the potential damages our economy would suffer if the rights previously granted to the tuna industry were limited.Equally, it is not acceptable to speak of subsidies to the foreign industry, since they do not exist, but rather a mere expectation is generated that would be fulfilled if and only if, the national tuna industry is supplied.
7. 7Luis Gerardo Dobles Ramírez renders his report, in his capacity as passive intervening party and states: Similar to the arguments presented by the Interim President of the Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he adds that there is no constitutional friction with Article 7 of the Political Constitution, since Article 11 of the challenged Decree does not establish any subsidy, in relation to the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Fundamental Charter, because purse seine tuna fishing is not carried out in Costa Rican jurisdictional waters or in the economic zone of Costa Rica, as understood from Article 9 of the challenged Decree. The indicated regulations and the challenged article do not produce any decrease or overfishing of said tuna resource, nor of other fishery resources; it has been determined that the operation and processing of tuna in Costa Rica, through the national canning or packing industry, generates direct and indirect, real, quantifiable benefits throughout the entire chain of wealth and production associated with tuna.In relation to Article 50 of the Constitution and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, it is false, improper, and unsustainable to apply it to purse seine tuna fishing, as it is irrelevant to attempt to establish that this activity is responsible for the deterioration of fishing and not all other fisheries. The questioned rule has no relationship whatsoever with the massive exploitation of sea resources and even less in the economic zone of Costa Rica, where it does not apply, therefore it is absolutely scientifically unprovable to attempt to hold the tuna purse seine fleets at the EPO level responsible for said situation and even less to establish a correlation of this with the application of the provisions of Article 11 questioned in this action, which is completely improper. It goes without saying that there is even less relationship between the questioned Article 11 and Articles 69 and 89 of the Political Constitution, since the alleged overexploitation of the tuna resource, unproven by the petitioner, does not exist.It is evidenced and proven that the application of Executive Decree 37386-MAG generates fiscal benefits and resources for the country and for INCOPESCA as the national fisheries authority, and the distribution of wealth and benefits at the country level and among our population, which demonstrates that our legislators and the country have carried out, in this matter, an adequate evaluation, utilization, protection, and conservation of the resource in accordance with the fundamental principles and pillars of our Constitution, for which reason I request the total rejection of the action of unconstitutionality and its dismissal.
8. 8By resolution at 3:25 p.m. on November 3, 2014, the hearings granted to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and INCOPESCA were deemed answered. Furthermore, regarding the interventions: In the specific case, the petitioners LUIS GERARDO DOBLES RAMÍREZ and OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, representing TXOPITUNA SRL, timely requested to be considered as passive intervening parties; however, the representative of the latter failed to comply with what was ordered by resolution at 2:16 p.m. on October 24; consequently, it is appropriate to admit only the intervention of the former and reject that of TXOPITUNA SRL, given that due to this non-compliance it cannot be heard nor, therefore, considered as an intervening party. (folio 127 of the case file). The former indicates in summary that the administration of the resource has a regional focus and its regulations come from an international body, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), of which Costa Rica is a co-founder and active member, as a contracting party, which are accepted by the member countries.The Management Program for the tuna resource by the IATTC has existed for more than 60 years and is considered by scientists worldwide in fisheries management as one of the most successful fisheries management programs in the world. Subsequently, by document of November 7, 2014, OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, representing TXOPITUNA SRL, files what he calls an "appeal for revocation" against the Chamber's resolution where his intervention is rejected, since he indicates that he complied with the preventive order made.
9. 9The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, deeming this resolution to be sufficiently founded on evident principles and rules, as well as on the jurisprudence of this Court.
10. 10The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.

Drafted by Judge Cruz Castro; and,

WHEREAS:

I.Preliminary matter regarding the passive intervention of OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, representing TXOPITUNA SRL.- By resolution at 3:25 p.m. on November 3, 2014, the hearings granted to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and INCOPESCA were deemed answered. Furthermore, regarding the interventions, the one presented by the petitioner LUIS GERARDO DOBLES RAMÍREZ was admitted, but the one presented by OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, representing TXOPITUNA SRL, was rejected. The latter, because it appeared he had not complied with the preventive order made by resolution at 2:16 p.m. on October 24. However, examining the case file and observing that, contrary to what was stated, the petitioner did comply with the preventive order, his passive intervention is admitted.

II.Subject of the challenge.- The petitioner challenges Article 11 of Executive Decree No. 37386 of July 9, 2012, which is the "Regulation for the use of the Purse Seine Tuna Fishing Capacity recognized to Costa Rica within the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission". The challenged article provides the following:

"Article 11.- The percentage of the total annualized offloading in Costa Rica of the catch made during the year of the authorization, immediately prior, by a purse seine tuna vessel, that is effectively offloaded in national territory for its commercialization from national plants with or without industrialization, shall proportionally generate a credit right against the payment to be made by the same vessel, in the immediately subsequent period of the respective annual fee. In the event of non-industrialized product in national territory, the credit right described in this article shall only be granted when the offloaded product remains in national territory for a period of no less than thirty calendar days." The petitioner considers that such rule is unconstitutional for violating Articles 21, 50, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, by stipulating that foreign purse seine tuna vessels that offload the product in Costa Rican territory, for its commercialization from national plants with or without industrialization, or in the event of non-industrialized product in national territory when the offloaded product remains in national territory for a period of no less than thirty calendar days, shall be given a payment credit, that is, the offloaded product shall be recognized for the next annual period, having access to the Costa Rican resource at a lower or even free cost, which constitutes an economic subsidy for foreign fleets, and does not conform to the principles of sustainable development and conservation of hydrobiological resources. Specifically, he considers that the challenged rule violates:

• 1)The principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva legal), since the Executive Branch cannot, by way of decree, establish a tax, a national contribution, much less an exemption. The challenged article grants credits against the payment of fees for licenses, which constitutes a subsidy for the foreign tuna vessels that offload their product in national territory. Which also violates the principle of equality of public burdens since in these cases the public treasury receives nothing, lower revenues being received from licenses for the State.
• 2)The right to the environment because granting credits against the payment of fees for licenses (subsidy) for foreign tuna vessels that offload their product in national territory is not consistent with the protection of marine resources and with conservation measures to avoid overexploitation. With the overexploitation of the tuna resource, food security is affected and with it the health of families in coastal areas who subsist on this resource. Furthermore, it violates the international regulations ratified by Costa Rica that require the protection of natural resources. Thus, the rule being so permissive, and by subsidizing the international fleet in this way by offering a practically free cost of our tuna wealth, and the international fleet being its sole usufructuary, conditions are generated for a massive depredation of our resources by this fleet.

III.The standing of the petitioner in this case.- The petitioner has sufficient standing to challenge the constitutionality of the impugned rule, without it being necessary to have a prior matter serving as a basis for this action. The foregoing because he acts in defense of an interest that concerns the national community as a whole, such as the right to the environment. Therefore, the petitioner is perfectly legitimated to act directly, in light of the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. Likewise, this is a matter whose constitutionality may be reviewed in this forum, as it refers to a regulatory rule. Furthermore, the petitioner complied with the requirements stipulated in numerals 78 and 79 of the procedural Law. In conclusion, the present action is admissible, so the subject and merits of the matter must be discussed immediately.

IV.On the methodology for analyzing the action.- To facilitate the study of the challenged regulations, we begin with a whereas clause that generally explains the scope of the challenged Regulation, to then examine specifically the constitutionality of the challenged Article 11, under the arguments given by the petitioner and the intervening parties.

V.In general regarding the "Regulation for the use of purse seine tuna fishing capacity".- As indicated by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic in its report, the Regulation for the use of purse seine tuna fishing capacity is based on the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Convention for the Strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), among others, so its analysis cannot be carried out without first considering the main precepts that said rules contain on the matter. The Office of the Attorney General explains that, during the sixtieth meeting of the IATTC, a purse seine tuna fishing capacity of 9364 cubic meters usable by purse seine vessels was recognized to Costa Rica, so the challenged decree regulates the use of this purse seine tuna fishing capacity that was recognized to the country.

The regulation establishes that the Executive Branch, through an executive agreement, will assign partial volumes of the fishing capacity (article 2 of the regulation), with the maximum availability authorized for the country (9364 cubic meters) as the limit and based on the technical recommendation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and the studies prepared by INCOPESCA, which will be materialized through a temporary fishing capacity authorization (article 3 of the regulation). The granting of a temporary authorization is also subject to the fulfillment of a series of conditions (article 4 of the regulation). Additionally, the shipowner or vessel owner must sign an operational agreement with the MAG, which must have the official endorsement of the Fisheries Authority of the flag country (article 5 of the regulation). Likewise, according to article 10, to obtain said temporary authorization, foreign-flagged purse-seine tuna vessels must pay an annual fee equivalent to $150 per metric ton of gross carrying capacity registered in the IATTC Regional Register or based on what is stipulated in the international tonnage certificate.

Now, the challenged article 11 establishes a credit right applicable to the referred annual fee. Thus, from the total payable for the fee established in article 10, the tuna vessel may deduct the percentage that it has unloaded for commercialization in national plants with or without industrialization, or when the unloaded product remains in the country for at least 30 calendar days. In the same sense is article 55 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, whose incentive was challenged through a similar unconstitutionality action 14-11148-0007-CO; the Attorney General's Office indicated that the ultimate purpose of this type of regulation is to ensure that the Costa Rican State can take immediate and direct advantage of marine resources, specifically tuna fisheries, existing in its Exclusive Economic Zone, and promote local supply, which is part of the policies it is authorized to carry out. In its report, INCOPESCA also provides relevant information, indicating that the basic principle of the questioned credit was to encourage foreign vessels, which can catch tuna anywhere in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) within the guidelines of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), to leave the captured product to be processed by national processing industries and thereby additionally stimulate the business sector, the creation of jobs in areas that socially require this stimulus, such as the province of Puntarenas.

Thus, the catch of the tuna quota assigned per vessel must pay a canon of $150 per metric ton, where it is true that as of today, these are foreign vessels, but this is justified in the sense that Costa Rica has not nationalized a single vessel dedicated to purse-seine tuna fishing. INCOPESCA further adds that, historically, Costa Rica had never before made use of its tuna quota within the framework of the IATTC, because not having a tuna fleet, the benefits of said quota had not been quantifiable. Taking the above context into account, the examination of the constitutionality of the challenged article proceeds below.

VI.On the constitutionality of the challenged article.- As stated, the challenged article 11 is intimately related to article 10 of the same regulation. The latter establishes the amount that foreign-flagged purse-seine tuna vessels must pay for the annual fee to utilize the fishing capacity. While article 11 establishes the credit recognized to them in the payment, when the percentage of the total annualized unloading in Costa Rica of the catch made during the year of the authorization, immediately prior, by a purse-seine tuna vessel, is effectively unloaded in national territory for its commercialization from national plants with or without industrialization, or, in the event of non-industrialized product in national territory, when the unloaded product remains in national territory for a period of no less than thirty calendar days. The obligation to unload in State ports originates in the Law of the Sea (article 62.4.h of the Law of the Sea Convention) and in the sovereign rights that coastal States exercise over their exclusive economic zone for the purposes of exploration and exploitation, conservation, and management of natural resources, both living and non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil.

There is an obligation, established in article 61 of the Law of the Sea Convention, for coastal States to determine the allowable catch of the living resources in their Exclusive Economic Zone based on the most reliable scientific data available, ensuring the preservation of the resources. According to the challenged regulation, if the foreign-flagged purse-seine tuna vessel unloads the tuna catch in national territory for its commercialization, then it generates a credit right in the payment of the annual fee established in the aforementioned article 10. In the petitioner's opinion, said credit operates as an exemption, and as such, can only have been established by law (violation of the principle of legal reserve), and furthermore, said credit favors the overexploitation of tuna (violation of the right to the environment). For their part, both the Attorney General's Office and INCOPESCA in their reports, as well as the passive coadjuvants, consider that no such unconstitutionality exists.

The former states that, contrary to what the petitioner considers, regulations like the one challenged seek to ensure that maritime resources are utilized in the country and prevent their rampant plundering, and also allow for cross-checking of information that enables the State, through the different competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight. INCOPESCA states that article 11 of the questioned decree has brought nothing but benefits to the State through the canon charged for the tuna quota. Moreover, the country could not, in one stroke, overturn the rights granted with their expectations, as this could eventually put public finances and the good international reputation Costa Rica holds at risk, in the face of potential claims for damages and losses caused to them. Likewise, the argument of resource overexploitation cannot be accepted. IATTC studies on the sustainability of the resource indicate that catch quotas per country have been assigned precisely to guarantee the sustainable development of the tuna fishing fleet operating in the EPO.

Therefore, it concludes, it is not acceptable to speak of subsidies to the foreign industry, as they do not exist; rather, what is generated is a mere expectation, which would only be fulfilled if the national tuna industry is supplied. On their side, the passive coadjuvants state that the overexploitation of fishery resources is not related to the fishing by international tuna vessels but to factors such as uncontrolled fleet growth, open access to the resource, an increase in fishers, among others. The challenged regulation does not establish a subsidy, but a consideration for fulfilling the condition set forth by the regulation. They conclude that the alleged unconstitutionality defects do not exist in the petitioner's factual grounds, nor in the supposed substantive legal arguments. Thus, then, this Chamber proceeds to examine each of the petitioner's arguments separately. 1) The allegation of violation of the principle of legal reserve: From reading the challenged article 11, it is derived that the credit right established therein cannot be defined as an exemption nor equated to the non-payment of a tax.

Technically, it operates as an incentive to encourage the foreign-flagged purse-seine tuna vessel to unload, in national territory for its commercialization, the tuna catch made, according to the quota assigned to the country, or for that unloading to remain in national territory for no less than 30 days. Now, according to the reasons stated, no violation of the principle of legal reserve is observed. In the first place, the creation of incentives is a faculty of INCOPESCA, derived from its own law, specifically from article 5, where the legislator authorizes it to extend, suspend, cancel, and grant incentives. Thus, INCOPESCA, by express legal provision, is authorized to extend, suspend, cancel fishing, marine hunting, and vessel construction permits, as well as licenses and concessions for production in the field of aquaculture, to the individuals and legal entities that request them, and to establish the amounts to be charged for the licenses, as well as to regulate and manage incentives.

Furthermore, we find articles 2 subsection 20, 7, and 49 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, all of which reinforce INCOPESCA's competence to create, grant, cancel, control, and establish the amounts to be charged for the fishing licenses it deems necessary. From the foregoing it follows, then, that there is no violation of the principle of legal reserve, since article 11 of the challenged regulation develops a faculty legally granted to INCOPESCA. In the second place, as stated, the credit regulated in the challenged article 11 is not a tax or an exemption, but an incentive, which, moreover, is not being created by the regulation, but by virtue of the legal competences of INCOPESCA, as stated. By virtue of the foregoing, it is not found that article 11 of the Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco violates the principle of legal reserve. 2) The allegation of violation of the right to the environment: the petitioner argues that the regulated credit increases the supposed environmental and economic damages arising from fishing activity.

However, for the reasons stated, said allegation is also dismissed. In the first place, said argument presupposes the verification of a factual supposition, which cannot be examined through an unconstitutionality action. The verification of the overexploitation of tuna fishing, nor whether a causal relationship exists between the granting of the challenged credit and overexploitation, does not correspond through this type of constitutional process. In the second place, the country's fishing capacity is determined through an entire procedure, with Costa Rica being recognized, during the sixtieth meeting of the IATTC, a purse-seine tuna fishing capacity of 9364 cubic meters usable by purse-seine vessels. No arguments or concrete facts are presented in this action to determine that said capacity is being exceeded. In the third place, to practice tuna fishing in Costa Rican jurisdictional waters, a license, a temporary unloading permit, and payment of the corresponding fee are required.

Additional requirements for foreign-flagged vessels include registering with INCOPESCA and signing a contract with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Therefore, as the Attorney General's Office literally indicates in its report: "for the practice of tuna fishing in Costa Rican waters, it is required to have a license and the current registration of the vessel, and it is also necessary to have a temporary permit that establishes the fishing capacity authorized for each vessel, without the sum of all these authorizations being able to exceed the purse-seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country, which must also be complemented with article 7 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura... regulations such as those contained in decree 37386-MAG serve to ensure that the purse-seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country is not exceeded, and also contain incentives that seek to guarantee local supply." In the fourth place, it is the State's power to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus preventing the entirety of the extracted resource from being used abroad.

As the Attorney General's Office indicates in its report, "contrary to what the petitioner considers, regulations like the one challenged seek to ensure that maritime resources are utilized in the country and prevent their rampant plundering, and also allow for cross-checking of information that enables the State, through the different competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight." This Chamber does not ignore the fact that has come to light in the news (March 16, 2017), in the sense that modifications in the granting of licenses could double revenues, because according to data from a study conducted by the Centro de Investigaciones en Política Económica (Cinpe), of the Universidad Nacional (UNA), and the Marviva Foundation, while the commercial value of the catches is about $62 million annually, the country's income from fishing licenses for that species is $904,694 per year, that is, 1.45% of the commercial value of the species.

Likewise, according to said data, of the total catch estimated at 25,000 metric tons annually, only 23% remains in Costa Rica and the rest of the tuna fishing is transferred to other countries where it is processed. However, this does not make the regulation itself unconstitutional; rather, it is a matter that INCOPESCA and the Executive Branch themselves must assess to determine whether adjustments should be made. But in no way does this lead to the unconstitutionality of the regulation per se.

VII.Conclusion.- Article 11 of the "Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco" is not found to violate the principle of legal reserve because it is not only the establishment of an incentive and not the exemption of a tax, but the establishment of incentives is a legal competence of INCOPESCA. Nor does it violate the right to the environment because it is not proven that a causal relationship exists between the granting of the challenged credit and overexploitation. Furthermore, tuna fishing in Costa Rica is regulated (a license, a temporary unloading permit, payment of the corresponding fee, and signing a contract and registering, in the case of foreign-flagged vessels, are required), with it being the State's power to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus preventing the entirety of the extracted resource from being used abroad. It is for the Executive Branch itself and INCOPESCA to determine whether modifications in the granting of licenses should be made to double revenues. The establishment of incentives per se does not make the regulation unconstitutional, nor does it constitute per se a violation of the environment. Therefore, by virtue of the foregoing, the dismissal of this action is imposed, and it is hereby ordered.

VIII.Magistrate Cruz adds a note.- As the majority opinion itself indicates, it has come to light in the news (March 16, 2017) that modifications in the granting of licenses could double revenues, because according to data from a study conducted by the Centro de Investigaciones en Política Económica (Cinpe), of the Universidad Nacional (UNA), and the Marviva Foundation, while the commercial value of the catches is about $62 million annually, the country's income from fishing licenses for that species is $904,694 per year, that is, 1.45% of the commercial value of the species. Likewise, according to said data, of the total catch estimated at 25,000 metric tons annually, only 23% remains in Costa Rica and the rest of the tuna fishing is transferred to other countries where it is processed. From which I consider that in these cases quasi-gratuitous licenses are granted, to the detriment of public funds. Under the same reasoning applied to collective bargaining agreements that have been challenged in this Constitutional Court, there exists a disproportionate and irrational administration of public funds in these cases, which would warrant constitutional review in this regard.

IX. DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE

The parties are warned that if they have submitted any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Full Court in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The action is declared WITHOUT merit. Magistrate Cruz adds a note.

Ernesto Jinesta L. President Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L. Nancy Hernández L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A. José P. Hernández G.

75/03 Regarding the alleged environmental and economic damages that arise from the activity carried out by the fisheries and that, in the appellant's opinion, are increased by the credit regulated in Article 11 of Regulation 37386-MAG. In accordance with the rule itself, specifically numeral 13, these resources coming from the collection of annual fees for the use of tuna fishing capacity established in this Regulation shall be destined exclusively to finance the fulfillment of the purposes and objectives established by the Law for INCOPESCA, especially to finance the development and promotion of tuna and related species fisheries and the country's participation in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and other International Forums of interest for fishing and aquaculture, as well as to contribute to the application and implementation of the National Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture Development, specifically to improve national scientific capacity and consolidate the human and technical resource with academic training in fisheries research and management.

An annual percentage of 15% of the total resources generated by the allocation of tuna fishing capacity shall be destined by INCOPESCA to form a fund for competitive resources in the area of developing research projects in fisheries matters, which may be accessed by the country's public universities. In relation to the alleged environmental damage, as established in the report rendered within expediente 14-11148-0007-CO, it is clear that the State has the express obligation to ensure the conservation, protection, and sustainable development of hydrobiological resources—see Articles 1, 8, 5.h, 5.g of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura. In express relation to tuna fishing, the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura dedicates a special regime to it, established in accordance with Article 49, which in its exercise or practice requires a fishing license issued exclusively for that purpose; it must also have a temporary discharge permit or license from the Executive Branch and pay the corresponding fee, which also ensures that a single vessel will not solely consume the purse seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country, but rather that said capacity must be distributed proportionally among the purse seine vessels.

When it comes to licenses for foreign-flagged vessels, they are granted if they register before INCOPESCA—a rule developed in Decree 37386-MAG, Article 7, see Voto 10484-2004. That is to say, it has been understood that this Article 7, insofar as it permits tuna fishing by foreign vessels, constitutes a legitimate exercise of the powers that the Law of the Sea recognizes for the State of Costa Rica. However, rules such as those contained in Decree 37386-MAG come to ensure that the purse seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country is not exceeded, and they also contain incentives that seek to guarantee local supply. According to Article 60 of the Ley de Pesca, tuna fishing may be carried out in the exclusive economic zone of Costa Rica. The Law of the Sea clearly establishes that States have the right to impose on vessels fishing in their jurisdictional waters, including the exclusive economic zone, the obligation to land part or all of their catch in a national port; this obligation may cover foreign-flagged vessels—see Article 62.4.h of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It is notable that, expressly, the Law of the Sea imposes on the State of Costa Rica a duty to determine the permissible catch in the exclusive economic zone based on technical, reliable, and updated criteria to ensure the conservation and restoration of species subject to fishing, including tuna. This is implicit in Article 6 of the Constitution, since it is clear that an excessive or irrational exploitation of these resources would constitute a violation of sovereign rights and an illegitimate affectation of natural resources. In summary, from the analysis carried out, it clearly emerges that the country has an obligation to ensure the conservation and adequate management of living marine resources, and that in the case of purse seine tuna, there are regulations that guarantee the exercise of controls over the activity for these purposes and that impose on the State the analysis of the conditions under which the activity is carried out so that the limit of purse seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country is not exceeded.

Likewise, it is the State's power to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus preventing the entirety of the extracted resource from being used abroad. In other words, contrary to what the claimant believes, rules such as the one challenged seek to ensure that maritime resources are utilized within the country and that there is no excessive plundering of them, and they also allow for cross-checks of information that enable the State, through the various competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight. Based on the foregoing, this Advisory Body concludes that Article 11 of Regulation number 37386-MAG, per se, is not unconstitutional.

1. 6Walter Cruz Sandoval submits his report, in his capacity as Acting President of the Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, and indicates: The claimant makes a serious error of interpretation and reading regarding the purpose of the executive decree challenged, since it is not directed at granting fishing licenses for foreign vessels, but rather at assigning fishing quotas from the quota that Costa Rica has as a State Party to the Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical, CIAT, without this action meaning that a license is granted to fish for tuna in our jurisdictional waters. The basic principle of the questioned credit was to stimulate said vessels, which can catch tuna anywhere in the Eastern Pacific Ocean—EPO—within the CIAT guidelines, to leave the captured product to be processed by national industries and thereby additionally stimulate the business sector and the creation of employment sources in areas that socially require this stimulus, such as the province of Puntarenas.The capture of the tuna quota assigned per vessel must pay a fee of $150.00 per metric ton, where it is true that today these are foreign vessels, but this is justified in the sense that Costa Rica has not nationalized a single vessel dedicated to catching tuna with purse seine nets, besides which it must equally respect the principles of responsible fishing determined by the CIAT to guarantee the sustainability of the tuna fishery product referred to in the CIAT guidelines and provisions. The aforementioned Article 11 of the questioned decree could apparently exceed its scope by addressing a topic that might be proper to a Law of the Republic, according to the claimant's perspective. However, to date, the rule has not been questioned and has done nothing but bring benefits to the State through the fee charged for the tuna quota. Therefore, in compliance with Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the scope of the challenged decree is established, without this meaning that we must harm our interests as a State in seeking to improve the State's finances by assigning tuna quotas, since no one could claim that the tuna resource existing in the EPO is exclusive to Costa Rica, as it is a highly migratory resource.Consequently, it acquires the nationality of the vessel that catches it in waters outside the exclusive economic zone. Thus, the claimant's assertion regarding the violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution is not acceptable. We cannot accept the arguments insofar as the reason for challenging the rule is the overexploitation of the resource. The CIAT studies on the sustainability of the resource indicate precisely that catch quotas have been assigned per country in order to guarantee the sustainable development of the tuna fishing fleet operating in the EPO. In any event, if the action filed against the questioned numeral were to succeed, Costa Rica's provision to take advantage of the tuna quota to which it is entitled in the EPO could not be affected, since it continues to be assigned, logically without granting the credit benefit provided by Article 11 of the challenged decree.The challenged rule has not been issued by INCOPESCA, but is rather a manifestation of the Executive's will through an executive decree; therefore, we could not quantify the eventual damages our economy would suffer if rights previously given to the tuna industry were limited. Likewise, it is not acceptable to speak of subsidies to foreign industry, as they do not exist; rather, a mere expectation is generated, which would be fulfilled if, and only if, the national tuna industry is supplied.
2. 7Luis Gerardo Dobles Ramírez submits his report in his capacity as passive coadjuvant and indicates: Similar to the arguments presented by the Acting President of the Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, he adds that there is no conflict with constitutionality regarding Article 7 of the Political Constitution, since Article 11 of the challenged Decree does not establish any subsidy. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, tuna fishing with purse seine nets is not carried out in Costa Rican jurisdictional waters or in the exclusive economic zone of Costa Rica, as understood from Article 9 of the challenged Decree. The indicated regulation and the challenged article produce no decrease nor overfishing of said tuna resource, nor of other fishery resources. It has been determined that the operation and processing of tuna in Costa Rica, through the national canning or packing industry, generates direct and indirect benefits, real and quantifiable, throughout the chain of wealth and production associated with tuna.Regarding Article 50 of the Constitution and the right to a healthy and economically balanced environment, it is false, inappropriate, and untenable to apply it to purse seine tuna fishing, as it is irrelevant to attempt to establish that this activity is responsible for the deterioration of fishing and not all other fisheries. The questioned rule has no relation whatsoever to the massive exploitation of sea resources, and even less so in the exclusive economic zone of Costa Rica, where it does not apply. Therefore, it is absolutely scientifically unprovable to try to hold purse seine tuna fleets operating in the EPO responsible for said situation, and even less to establish a correlation between this and the application of the provisions of Article 11 challenged in this action, which is completely inappropriate. It goes without saying that there is even less relation between the challenged Article 11 and Articles 69 and 89 of the Political Constitution, since the alleged overexploitation of the tuna resource, unproven by the claimant, does not exist.It is evidenced and proven that the application of Executive Decree 37386-MAG generates fiscal benefits and resources for the country and for INCOPESCA as the national fisheries authority, and the distribution of wealth and benefits at the country level and for our population, which demonstrates that our legislators and the country have carried out, in this matter, an assessment, utilization, protection, and conservation of the resource in an ideal manner and in accordance with the fundamental principles and pillars of our Constitution. Therefore, I request the total rejection of the unconstitutionality action and its inadmissibility.
3. 8By resolution at 3:25 p.m. on November 3, 2014, the hearings granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and INCOPESCA were deemed answered. Additionally, regarding the coadjuvancies: In the specific case, the petitioners LUIS GERARDO DOBLES RAMÍREZ and OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, representing TXOPITUNA SRL, timely requested to be considered passive coadjuvants; however, the representative of the latter failed to comply with what was ordered by resolution at 2:16 p.m. on October 24. Consequently, it is appropriate to admit only the coadjuvancy of the former and reject that of TXOPITUNA SRL, given that due to this noncompliance it cannot be heard nor, therefore, considered a coadjuvant (folio 127 of the expediente). The former indicates, in summary, that the management of the resource has a regional focus and its regulations come from an international organization, the Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (CIAT), of which Costa Rica is a co-founder and current member, as a contracting party, which are accepted by the member countries.The Tuna Resource Management Program by the CIAT has more than 60 years of existence and is considered by scientists worldwide in fisheries management as one of the most successful fisheries management programs in the world. Later, by brief dated November 7, 2014, OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, representing TXOPITUNA SRL, filed what he calls a "motion for reversal" against the Chamber's resolution rejecting his coadjuvancy, arguing that the ordered warning was complied with.
4. 9The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by Article 9 ibidem, deeming this resolution sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.
5. 10The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.

Drafted by Magistrate Cruz Castro; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.Preliminarily regarding the passive coadjuvancy of OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, representing TXOPITUNA SRL.- By resolution at 3:25 p.m. on November 3, 2014, the hearings granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and INCOPESCA were deemed answered. Additionally, regarding the coadjuvancies, the one filed by petitioner LUIS GERARDO DOBLES RAMÍREZ was admitted, but the one filed by OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, representing TXOPITUNA SRL, was rejected. This last point was because, apparently, he had not complied with the warning made by resolution at 2:16 p.m. on October 24. However, examining the expediente and observing that, contrary to what was said, the petitioner did comply with the warning, his passive coadjuvancy is admitted.

II.Object of the challenge.- The claimant challenges Article 11 of Executive Decree No. 37386 of July 9, 2012, which is the "Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de Atún de Cerco reconocida a Costa Rica en el seno de la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical". The challenged article provides the following:

"*Article 11.- The percentage of the total annualized discharge in Costa Rica of the catch made during the year of the authorization, immediately prior by a purse seine tuna vessel, that is effectively discharged in national territory for its commercialization from national plants with or without industrialization, will proportionally generate a credit right on the payment to be made by the same vessel, in the immediately following period of the respective annual fee. In the event of a product not industrialized in national territory, the credit right described in this article will only be granted when the discharged product remains in national territory for a period of not less than thirty calendar days. *" The claimant believes that this rule is unconstitutional for violating Articles 21, 50, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, by virtue of the fact that it stipulates that foreign purse seine tuna vessels that discharge the product in Costa Rican territory for commercialization from national plants with or without industrialization, or in the event of non-industrialized product in national territory when the discharged product remains in national territory for a period of not less than thirty calendar days, will be granted a payment credit; that is, the discharged product will be recognized for the following annual period, thus having access to the Costa Rican resource at a lower cost or even free of charge.

This constitutes an economic subsidy for foreign fleets and does not conform to the principles of sustainable development and conservation of hydrobiological resources. Specifically, he believes the challenged rule violates:

• 1)The principle of legal reserve, since the Executive Branch cannot, by decree, establish a tax, a national contribution, much less an exoneration. The challenged article grants credits on the payment of fees for licenses, which constitutes a subsidy for foreign tuna vessels that discharge their product in national territory. This also violates the principle of equality of public burdens since in these cases the public treasury receives nothing, resulting in lower revenues from license fees for the State.
• 2)The right to the environment, since granting credits on the payment of fees for licenses (subsidy) to foreign tuna vessels that discharge their product in national territory is not consistent with the protection of marine resources and conservation measures to prevent overexploitation. When overexploitation of the tuna resource occurs, food security is affected, and with it the health of families in coastal areas that subsist on this resource. In addition, it violates international regulations ratified by Costa Rica that mandate the protection of natural resources. Thus, the rule being so permissive, and by subsidizing the international fleet in this way by offering a practically free cost of our tuna wealth, with the international fleet being its sole beneficiary, conditions are generated for a massive depravation of our resources by this fleet.

III.The claimant's standing in this case.- The claimant has sufficient standing to challenge the constitutionality of the challenged rule, without it being necessary to have a prior matter serving as a basis for this action. This is because he acts in defense of an interest that concerns the national community as a whole, such as the right to the environment. Therefore, the claimant is perfectly legitimate to act directly, in light of the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Likewise, this is a matter whose constitutionality may be reviewed in this forum, as it refers to a regulatory rule. Furthermore, the claimant met the requirements stipulated in Articles 78 and 79 of the procedural law. In conclusion, this action is admissible; therefore, the object and merits of the matter must be discussed immediately.

IV.Regarding the analysis methodology of the action.- To facilitate the study of the challenged regulation, we begin with a considering clause that explains, generally, the scope of the challenged Regulation, and then examine concretely the constitutionality of the challenged Article 11, under the arguments given by the claimant and the coadjuvants.

V.In general regarding the "Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco".- As indicated by the Procuraduría General de la República in its report, the Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco is founded on the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Convention for the Strengthening of the Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (CIAT), among others. Therefore, its analysis cannot be carried out without first taking into consideration the main precepts that these norms contain on the subject. The Procuraduría explains that, during the sixtieth meeting of the CIAT, Costa Rica was recognized a purse seine tuna fishing capacity of 9364 cubic meters usable by purse seine vessels, so the challenged decree comes to regulate the utilization of this purse seine tuna fishing capacity that was recognized to the country.

The regulation establishes that the Executive Branch, through an executive agreement, will assign partial volumes of fishing capacity (article 2 of the regulation), with the maximum availability authorized to the country (9364 cubic meters) as the limit and based on the technical recommendation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and on studies prepared by INCOPESCA, which will materialize through a temporary fishing capacity authorization (article 3 of the regulation). The granting of a temporary authorization is also subject to compliance with a series of conditions (article 4 of the regulation). Additionally, the shipowner or vessel owner must sign an operational agreement with the MAG, which must have the official endorsement of the Fishing Authority of the flag country (article 5 of the regulation). Likewise, according to article 10, in order to have said temporary authorization, foreign-flagged tuna purse seine vessels must pay an annual right equivalent to $150 per metric ton of gross carrying capacity registered in the CIAT Regional Registry or based on what is stipulated in an international tonnage certification.

Now then, the challenged article 11 establishes a credit right applicable to the referred annual right. Thus, from the total payable for the right established in article 10, the tuna vessel may deduct the percentage that it has unloaded for commercialization in national plants, with or without industrialization, or when the unloaded product remains in the country for at least 30 calendar days. In the same vein is article 55 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, whose incentive was challenged by a similar unconstitutionality action 14-11148-0007-CO; the Procuraduría indicated that the ultimate purpose of this type of regulation is to ensure that the Costa Rican State can utilize, in an immediate and direct manner, the marine resources, specifically the tuna fisheries, existing in its Exclusive Economic Zone, and to promote local supply, which is part of the policies it is authorized to carry out.

In its report, INCOPESCA also provides relevant information, indicating that the basic principle of the questioned credit was to stimulate foreign vessels that may catch tuna anywhere in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), within the guidelines of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (CIAT), to leave the caught product to be processed by national processing industries and thereby additionally stimulate the business sector, the creation of jobs in areas that socially require this stimulus, such as the province of Puntarenas. Thus, the catch of the tuna quota assigned per vessel must pay a canon of $150 per metric ton; it is true that, to date, these are foreign vessels, but this is justified by the fact that Costa Rica has not nationalized a single vessel dedicated to catching tuna with a purse seine net. INCOPESCA further adds that, historically, Costa Rica had never before made use of its tuna quota within the framework of the CIAT, since by not having a tuna fleet, it had not been possible to quantify the benefits of said quota. Taking into account the foregoing context, the constitutional review of the challenged article proceeds below.

VI.On the constitutionality of the challenged article.- As stated, the challenged article 11 has an intimate relationship with article 10 of the same regulation. The latter establishes the amount that foreign-flagged tuna purse seine vessels must pay for the annual right to use fishing capacity. While article 11 establishes the credit recognized to them in the payment, when *the percentage of the total annualized unloading in Costa Rica of the catch made during the year of the authorization immediately prior, by a tuna purse seine vessel, is actually unloaded in national territory for its commercialization from national plants with or without industrialization, or, in the event of a product not industrialized in national territory, when the unloaded product remains in national territory for a period of not less than thirty calendar days*. The obligation to unload in the State's ports has its origin in the Law of the Sea (article 62.4.h of the Convention on the Law of the Sea) and in the sovereign rights that coastal States exercise over their exclusive economic zone for the purposes of exploration and exploitation, conservation and management of natural resources, both living and non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil.

There is an obligation, established in article 61 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, for coastal States to determine the allowable catch of living resources in their Exclusive Economic Zone based on the most reliable scientific data available, ensuring the preservation of the resources. According to the challenged regulation, if a foreign-flagged tuna purse seine vessel unloads the tuna catch in national territory for its commercialization, then a credit right is generated for it in the payment of the annual right established in the mentioned article 10. In the petitioner's opinion, said credit operates as an exoneration, and as such, can only be established by law (violation of the principle of legal reserve), and furthermore, said credit favors the overexploitation of tuna (violation of the right to the environment). For their part, both the Procuraduría General de la República and INCOPESCA in their reports, as well as the passive coadjuvants, consider that such unconstitutionality does not occur.

The first states that, contrary to what the petitioner considers, regulations like the challenged one seek to ensure that maritime resources are utilized in the country and that there is not an excessive plundering of them, and also allow for the exercise of cross-referenced information controls that enable the State, through the different competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight. INCOPESCA states that article 11 of the questioned decree has done nothing more than bring benefits to the State from the canon charged for the tuna quota. Furthermore, the country could not in one fell swoop overthrow the rights granted with their expectations, since that could eventually put public finances and the good prestige that Costa Rica has at an international level at risk, in the face of eventual claims for damages that may be caused to them. Likewise, the argument of overexploitation of the resource cannot be accepted.

The CIAT studies on the sustainability of the resource indicate that precisely catch quotas per country have been assigned for the purpose of guaranteeing the sustainable development of the tuna fishing fleet that operates in the EPO. Therefore, it concludes that talk of subsidies to foreign industry is not receivable, as they do not exist; rather, what is generated is a mere expectation, which would only be fulfilled if the national tuna industry is supplied. For their side, the passive coadjuvants state that the overexploitation of fishery resources is not related to the fishing by international tuna vessels but to factors such as uncontrolled growth of fleets, free access to the resource, increase in fishermen, among others. The challenged regulation does not establish a subsidy, but a consideration for the fulfillment of the condition set forth by the regulation. They conclude that the alleged grounds of unconstitutionality do not exist in the petitioner's factual foundations, nor in the alleged substantive arguments of law.

Thus, then, this Chamber proceeds to examine each argument of the petitioner separately. 1) The allegation of violation of the principle of legal reserve: From a reading of the challenged article 11, it is derived that the credit right established therein cannot be defined as an exoneration nor equated to the non-payment of a tax. Technically it operates as an incentive, to encourage the foreign-flagged tuna purse seine vessel to unload, in national territory for its commercialization, the tuna catch made, according to the quota assigned to the country or that such unloading remain in national territory for no less than 30 days. Now, according to the reasons set forth, no violation of the principle of legal reserve is observed. In the first place, the creation of incentives is a faculty of INCOPESCA, derived from its own law, specifically from article 5, where the legislator authorizes it to extend, suspend, cancel and grant incentives.

So, INCOPESCA, by express legal provision, is authorized to extend, suspend, cancel fishing, marine hunting and vessel construction permits, as well as licenses and concessions for production in the field of aquaculture, to natural and legal persons who request them and to establish the amounts to charge for the licenses, as well as to regulate and manage incentives. Furthermore, we have articles 2 subsection 20, 7 and 49 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, all of which reinforce INCOPESCA's competence to create, grant, cancel, control and establish the amounts to be charged for the fishing licenses it deems necessary. From the foregoing, it follows then that there is no violation of the principle of legal reserve, since article 11 of the challenged regulation develops a faculty legally granted to INCOPESCA. In the second place, as stated, the credit regulated in the challenged article 11 is not a tax or an exoneration, but an incentive, which, furthermore, is not being created by the regulation, but by virtue of the legal competencies of INCOPESCA, as stated.

By virtue of the foregoing, it is not found that article 11 of the Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco violates the principle of legal reserve. 2) The allegation of violation of the right to the environment: the petitioner argues that the regulated credit increases the alleged environmental and economic damages arising from fishing activity. However, for the reasons set forth, said allegation is also dismissed. In the first place, this argument presupposes the verification of a factual assumption, which is not appropriate to examine through an unconstitutionality action. The verification of the overexploitation of tuna fishing is not proper through this type of constitutional process, nor is establishing whether there is a causal relationship between the granting of the challenged credit and the overexploitation. In the second place, the country's fishing capacity is determined through a whole procedure, Costa Rica having been recognized, during the sixtieth meeting of the CIAT, a purse seine tuna fishing capacity of 9364 cubic meters usable by purse seine vessels.

In this action, no arguments or concrete facts are presented that lead to the determination that this capacity is being exceeded. In the third place, to practice tuna fishing in the jurisdictional waters of Costa Rica, a license, a temporary unloading permit and payment of the corresponding right are required. An additional requirement for foreign-flagged vessels is that they register with INCOPESCA and sign a contract with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Therefore, as the Procuraduría literally indicates in its report: *“for the practice of tuna fishing in the waters of Costa Rica, it is required to have a license and current registration of the vessel, and there must also be a temporary permit that establishes the fishing capacity that each vessel is authorized, without the sum of all these authorizations being able to exceed the purse seine tuna fishing capacity that the country is authorized, which must also be complemented with article 7 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura… regulations such as those contained in decree 37386-MAG serve to ensure that the country’s authorized purse seine tuna fishing capacity is not exceeded, and also contain incentives that seek to guarantee local supply.”* In the fourth place, it is the State's power to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus prevent the entirety of the extracted resource from being used abroad.

As the Procuraduría indicates in its report, *"contrary to what the petitioner considers, regulations like the challenged one seek to ensure that maritime resources are utilized in the country and that there is not an excessive plundering of them, and also allow for the exercise of cross-referenced information controls that enable the State, through the different competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight."* This Chamber is not unaware of the fact that has become known in the news (March 16, 2017), to the effect that modifications in the granting of licenses could double revenues, since according to data from the study conducted by the Centro de Investigaciones en Política Económica (Cinpe), of the Universidad Nacional (UNA), and the Marviva foundation, while the commercial value of the catches is approximately $62 million annually, the country's income from fishing licenses for this species is $904,694 per year, that is, 1.45% of the commercial value of the species.

Likewise, according to said data, of the total estimated catch of 25,000 metric tons annually, only 23% remains in Costa Rica and the rest of the tuna catch is transferred to other countries where it is processed. However, this does not make the regulation itself unconstitutional; rather it is an issue that INCOPESCA and the Executive Branch themselves must evaluate to determine if adjustments are appropriate. But in no way does this lead to the unconstitutionality of the regulation per se.

VII.Conclusion.- Article 11 of the "Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco" does not violate the principle of legal reserve because it is not only the establishment of an incentive and not the exoneration of a tax, but the establishment of incentives is a legal competence of INCOPESCA. Nor does it violate the right to the environment because it cannot be proven that there is a causal relationship between the granting of the challenged credit and overexploitation. Furthermore, tuna fishing in Costa Rica is regulated (a license, a temporary unloading permit, payment of the corresponding right and signing a contract and registering are required, in the case of foreign-flagged vessels), and it is the State's power to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus prevent the entirety of the extracted resource from being used abroad. It is for the Executive Branch itself and INCOPESCA to determine if modifications in the granting of licenses are appropriate to double revenues. The establishment of incentives per se does not make the regulation unconstitutional, nor does it constitute per se a violation of the environment. Therefore, by virtue of the foregoing, the dismissal of this action is imposed, as is indeed ordered.

VIII.Magistrate Cruz makes a note.- As the same majority wording indicates, it has become known in the news (March 16, 2017) that modifications in the granting of licenses could double revenues, since according to data from the study conducted by the Centro de Investigaciones en Política Económica (Cinpe), of the Universidad Nacional (UNA), and the Marviva foundation, while the commercial value of the catches is approximately $62 million annually, the country's income from fishing licenses for this species is $904,694 per year, that is, 1.45% of the commercial value of the species. Likewise, according to said data, of the total estimated catch of 25,000 metric tons annually, only 23% remains in Costa Rica and the rest of the tuna catch is transferred to other countries where it is processed. From which I consider that in these cases quasi-gratuitous licenses are granted, to the detriment of public funds. Under the same reasoning applied to the collective bargaining agreements that have been challenged in this Constitutional Jurisdiction, there is a disproportionate and irrational administration of public funds in these cases, which would warrant a constitutional control in this regard.

IX. DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE

The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or produced by new technologies, they must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 working days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material that is not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, according to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The action is declared WITHOUT MERIT. Magistrate Cruz makes a note.

Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L. Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A. José P.

*140133310007CO* Res. Nº 2017-011405 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours and sixteen minutes of the nineteenth of July of two thousand seventeen.

Unconstitutionality action brought by [Name 001], identification number [Value 001], in his capacity as legal representative of [Name 002], legal identification number [Value 002], seeking a declaration that ARTICLE 11 OF EXECUTIVE DECREE Nº 37386 OF 9 JULY 2012 is unconstitutional. Also participating in the proceeding were the representative of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the representative of the Costa Rican Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INCOPESCA).

WHEREAS:

1. 1By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 10:36 a.m. on 22 August 2014, the claimant requests, in summary, that the unconstitutionality of Article 11 of Executive Decree Nº 37386 of 9 July 2012 be declared. The norm is challenged insofar as it establishes the recognition of credits against the payment of fees for fishing licenses, which constitutes a subsidy for foreign tuna vessels that offload their product in national territory; these are not vessels belonging to small national entrepreneurs but rather giant machines that extract a large quantity of resources from our seas, for which they pay a very low fee of one hundred fifty dollars per metric ton when they do not land the tuna in Costa Rican territory and, without any reason, a payment credit is recognized to them, such that the national treasury receives nothing from the utilization of the nation's hydrobiological resources and fosters overexploitation of the marine resource.
2. 2To substantiate the standing he holds to bring this unconstitutionality action, he states that it derives from the diffuse interests over marine resources and the interest in protecting every citizen's right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
3. 3By resolution of 8:00 a.m. on 5 September 2014 (visible at folio 024 of the case file), the action was admitted, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Costa Rican Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INCOPESCA).
4. 4The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in numbers 189, 190, and 191 of the Judicial Bulletin, of 02, 03, and 06 October 2004 (folio 075 of the case file).
5. 5The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic submitted its report. It states: *On standing*: It exists due to the diffuse interest in the protection of natural resources, recognized by this Chamber through Ruling 5593-2012. *On the merits of the matter*: In relation to Article 11 of the Regulation for the Utilization of the Purse-Seine Tuna Fishing Capacity Recognized to Costa Rica within the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, an interpretation consistent with the Constitution and the Law of the Sea is required. The analysis of the norm cannot be performed in isolation, primarily because it is intimately related to Article 10 of the same regulation, insofar as the latter establishes the amount payable for the annual right when the authorization or temporary license for fishing capacity is held. In this sense, it is clear that the credit operates on the payment of said license, which, in accordance with Article 5 of the INCOPESCA Law, the latter is empowered to issue, suspend, cancel, and even grant incentives.That is, INCOPESCA, by express legal norm, is authorized to issue, suspend, cancel fishing, marine hunting, and vessel construction permits, as well as licenses and concessions for production in the field of aquaculture, to individuals and legal entities that request them, and to establish the amounts to be charged for licenses, as well as to regulate and manage the subsidies that the State allocates to the fisheries and aquaculture sector. This norm must be integrated with Articles 2, subsection 20, 7, and 49 of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law, all of which reinforce INCOPESCA's competence to create, grant, cancel, control, and establish the amounts to be charged for the fishing licenses deemed necessary. From the foregoing, it follows that there is no violation of the principle of legality, since, as has been reiterated, the regulatory framework of the activity is complex and established in a great number of norms, from whose integration it follows that the regulation in its entirety develops a power legally granted to INCOPESCA, with the license or authorization regulated through Decree 37386-MAG technically unable to be considered a tax, and in the same sense, the credit regulated in Article 11 does not constitute an exemption.It adds that the license is the administrative act that enables the individual to carry out the respective activity, and that its exercise and granting in the specific case is supported by the legal norm, which authorizes its regulation, given the complexity of the subject and the constant change generated in the field, to be developed by regulatory norm by express remit of the law regarding its granting process, without this being able to be considered a violation of the principle of legal reserve, since this regulatory development, even in tax matters, has been endorsed by this Constitutional Court – Rulings 2001-06641 and 2004-05015 – thus it is reiterated, the procedure for granting permits or temporary licenses for purse-seine tuna fishing capacity does not, in this specific case, violate the principle of legality. In the same sense, the credit regulated in Article 11 is not an exemption but an incentive that, in principle, is neither unconstitutional nor contrary to the Law of the Sea, but rather finds its foundation in the powers held by the State to protect its marine resources.Regarding the alleged environmental and economic damages arising from the activity carried out by the fisheries and which, in the petitioner's opinion, are increased by the credit regulated in Article 11 of Regulation 37386-MAG. In accordance with the norm itself, specifically numeral 13, these resources from the collection of annual rights for the use of the purse-seine tuna fishing capacity established in this Regulation shall be allocated exclusively to finance the fulfillment of the purposes and objectives established by the Law for INCOPESCA, especially to finance the development and promotion of tuna and related species fisheries and the country's participation in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and other International Forums of interest for fisheries and aquaculture, as well as to contribute to the application and implementation of the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Development Plan, specifically to improve national scientific capacity and consolidate human and technical resources with academic training in fisheries research and management.An annual percentage of 15% of the total resources generated by the allocation of tuna fishing capacity shall be allocated by INCOPESCA to create a fund for competitive resources for the development of research projects in fisheries matters, accessible to the country's public universities. In relation to the alleged environmental damage, as established in the report submitted in case file 14-11148-0007-CO, it is clear that the State has the express obligation to ensure the conservation, protection, and sustainable development of hydrobiological resources – see Articles 1, 8, 5.h, 5.g of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law. In express relation to tuna fishing, the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law dedicates a special regime to it, established in accordance with Article 49, which in its exercise or practice requires a fishing license issued exclusively for that purpose; it must also have a temporary offloading permit or license from the Executive Branch and pay the corresponding right, which also ensures that a single vessel does not solely consume the purse-seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country, but rather that said capacity must be distributed proportionally among purse-seine vessels.When dealing with licenses for foreign-flagged vessels, they are granted if they register with INCOPESCA – a norm developed in Decree 37386-MAG, Article 7, see Ruling 10484-2004. That is, it has been understood that this Article 7, insofar as it allows tuna fishing by foreign vessels, constitutes a legitimate exercise of the powers that the Law of the Sea recognizes for the State of Costa Rica, however, norms such as those contained in Decree 37386-MAG serve to ensure that the purse-seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country is not exceeded, and also contain incentives that seek to guarantee local supply. In accordance with Article 60 of the Fisheries Law, tuna fishing may be carried out in the exclusive economic zone of Costa Rica; the Law of the Sea clearly establishes that States have the right to impose on vessels fishing in their jurisdictional waters, including the exclusive economic zone, the obligation to offload part or all of their catch in a national port; this obligation can cover foreign-flagged vessels – see Article 62.4.h of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.It is notable that the Law of the Sea expressly imposes on the State of Costa Rica a duty to determine the allowable catch in the exclusive economic zone based on technical, reliable, and updated criteria to ensure the conservation and restoration of species subject to fishing, including tuna. This is implicit in Article 6 of the Constitution, since it is clear that excessive or irrational exploitation of these resources would constitute a violation of sovereignty rights and an illegitimate impact on natural resources. In summary, from the analysis performed, it clearly follows that the country has an obligation to ensure the conservation and proper management of living marine resources, and that in the case of purse-seine tuna, there are regulations guaranteeing the exercise of controls over the activity for these purposes and requiring the State to analyze the conditions under which the activity is carried out to ensure that the limit of the purse-seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country is not exceeded.Likewise, it is the State's power to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus preventing the entirety of the extracted resource from being utilized abroad. In other words, contrary to what the claimant considers, norms such as the one challenged seek to ensure that marine resources are utilized within the country and that unbridled plundering of them does not occur, and also allow for cross-checks of information that enable the State, through the various competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight. Based on the foregoing, this Advisory Body concludes that Article 11 of Regulation number 37386-MAG, per se, is not unconstitutional.
6. 6Walter Cruz Sandoval submitted his report in his capacity as President pro tempore of the Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture and states: The claimant makes a serious error of interpretation and reading regarding the purpose of the challenged executive decree, since it is not directed at granting fishing licenses to foreign vessels, but rather at the allocation of fishing quotas, of the kind that Costa Rica holds as a State Party to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (CIAT), without this action meaning that a license is granted to fish for tuna in our jurisdictional waters. The basic principle of the questioned credit was to encourage those vessels that can capture tuna anywhere in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), within the guidelines of the CIAT, to leave the captured product to be processed by national industries and thereby additionally stimulate the business sector, the creation of employment sources in areas that socially require this stimulus, such as the province of Puntarenas.The capture of the assigned tuna quota per vessel must pay a fee of $150.00 per metric ton, where it is true that, as of today, these are foreign vessels, but this is justified by the fact that Costa Rica has not nationalized a single vessel dedicated to capturing tuna with purse-seine nets, besides which it must also respect the principles of responsible fishing established by the CIAT to guarantee the sustainability of the tuna fishery resource referred to in the CIAT guidelines and provisions. The aforementioned Article 11 of the challenged decree could ostensibly overstep its scope by addressing a topic that could be proper to a Law of the Republic, from the claimant's perspective; however, to date, the norm had not been questioned and has done nothing but bring benefits to the State through the fee charged for the tuna quota. Therefore, in compliance with Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the scope of the challenged decree is established, without this meaning that we must harm our interests as a State in seeking to improve the State's finances by allocating tuna quotas, since no one could affirm that the tuna resource existing in the EPO is exclusive to Costa Rica, being a highly migratory resource; therefore, it acquires the nationality of the vessel that captures it in waters outside the exclusive economic zone, so the claimant's assertion regarding the violation of numeral 50 of the Political Constitution is not admissible.We cannot accept the arguments regarding the reason for challenging the norm being the overexploitation of the resource. The CIAT studies on the sustainability of the resource indicate that precisely catch quotas per country have been assigned in order to guarantee the sustainable development of the tuna fishing fleet operating in the EPO. In any event, if the action brought against the questioned numeral were to succeed, Costa Rica's willingness to utilize the tuna quota to which it is entitled in the EPO could not be affected, since it continues to be assigned, logically without granting the credit benefit provided by Article 11 of the challenged decree. The challenged norm was not issued by INCOPESCA, but is a manifestation of the Executive's will through an executive decree; therefore, we could not quantify the eventual damages our economy would suffer if the rights previously granted to the tuna industry were limited.Likewise, it is not admissible to speak of subsidies to the foreign industry, since none exist; rather, a mere expectation is generated that would be fulfilled if and only if the national tuna industry is supplied.
7. 7Luis Gerardo Dobles Ramírez submitted his report in his capacity as passive intervener and states: Arguments similar to those presented by the President pro tempore of the Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture; he adds that there is no friction with constitutionality regarding Article 7 of the Political Constitution, since Article 11 of the challenged Decree does not establish any subsidy, in relation to the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Fundamental Charter, because tuna fishing with purse-seine nets is not executed in Costa Rican jurisdictional waters or in the economic zone of Costa Rica, as understood from Article 9 of the challenged Decree. The indicated regulations and the challenged article do not produce any decrease or overfishing of said tuna resource, nor of other fishery resources; it has been determined that the operation and processing of tuna in Costa Rica, by means of the national canning or packing industry, generates direct and indirect, real, quantifiable benefits throughout the entire chain of wealth and production associated with tuna.Regarding Article 50 of the Constitution and the right to a healthy and economically balanced environment, it is false, improper, and unsustainable to apply it to purse-seine tuna fishing, as it is irrelevant for attempting to establish that this activity is responsible for the deterioration of fishing and not all other fisheries. The questioned norm has no relationship whatsoever with the massive exploitation of marine resources, and even less in the economic zone of Costa Rica, where it does not apply; therefore, it is absolutely scientifically unprovable to attempt to hold the tuna purse-seine fleets at the level of the EPO responsible for that situation, and even less to establish a correlation of this with the application of the provisions of Article 11 challenged in this action, which is completely improper.

It goes without saying that there is even less of a relationship with respect to the challenged Article 11 and Articles 69 and 89 of the Political Constitution, given that the alleged overexploitation of the resource, still undemonstrated by the plaintiff, does not exist; it is evident and proven that the application of Decreto Ejecutivo 37386-MAG generates tax benefits and resources for the country and for INCOPESCA as the national fisheries authority, and the distribution of wealth and benefits at the national level and to our population, which demonstrates that our legislators and the country have carried out, in this matter, a suitable assessment, utilization, protection, and conservation of the resource in accordance with the fundamental principles and pillars of our Constitution, for which reason I request the total rejection of the unconstitutionality action and its dismissal.

1. 8By resolution at 15:25 on November 3, 2014, the hearings granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and INCOPESCA were deemed answered. Furthermore, regarding the joinders: In the specific case, the petitioners LUIS GERARDO DOBLES RAMÍREZ and OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, on behalf of TXOPITUNA SRL, timely requested to be considered passive coadjuvants; however, the representative of the latter failed to comply with the order issued by resolution at 14:16 on October 24; consequently, it is appropriate to admit only the joinder of the former and to reject that of TXOPITUNA SRL, given that due to this non-compliance, it cannot be heard nor, therefore, be considered a coadjuvant. (folio 127 of the expediente). The former states in summary that the administration of the resource has a regional focus and its regulations come from an international organization, the Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (CIAT), of which Costa Rica is a co-founder and current member, as a contracting party, which are accepted by the member countries.The Program for the Management of the tuna resource by the CIAT has existed for more than 60 years and is considered by scientists worldwide in fisheries management to be one of the most successful fishery management programs in the world. Then, by filing dated November 7, 2014, OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, on behalf of TXOPITUNA SRL, presents what he calls a "motion for revocation" against the Chamber's resolution rejecting his joinder, because he states that the prevention order was complied with.
2. 9The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by Article 9 *ibídem*, deeming this resolution to be sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.
3. 10The procedures have complied with the prescriptions of law.

Drafted by Magistrate Cruz Castro; and,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.Preliminarily, regarding the passive joinder of OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, on behalf of TXOPITUNA SRL.- By resolution at 15:25 on November 3, 2014, the hearings granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and INCOPESCA were deemed answered. Furthermore, regarding the joinders, the one presented by the petitioner LUIS GERARDO DOBLES RAMÍREZ was admitted, but the one presented by OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, on behalf of TXOPITUNA SRL, was rejected. This last point, because, apparently, he had not complied with the prevention order issued by resolution at 14:16 on October 24. However, after examining the expediente and observing that, contrary to what was stated, the petitioner did comply with the prevention order, his passive joinder is admitted.

II.Object of the challenge.- The plaintiff challenges Article 11 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 37386 of July 9, 2012, which is the "Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de Atún de Cerco reconocida a Costa Rica en el seno de la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical." The challenged article provides the following:

“*Artículo 11.- The percentage of the annualized total landing (descarga) in Costa Rica of the catch made during the immediately preceding authorization year by a purse-seine tuna vessel, that is effectively landed in national territory for its commercialization from national plants, with or without industrialization, will proportionally generate a credit right (derecho de crédito) on the payment to be made by the same vessel, in the immediately following period of the respective annual right. In the event of a product not industrialized in national territory, the credit right described in this article will only be granted when the landed product remains in national territory for a period of no less than thirty calendar days.”* The plaintiff considers that this norm is unconstitutional because it violates Articles 21, 50, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, by stipulating that foreign purse-seine tuna vessels that land the product in Costa Rican territory for its commercialization from national plants, with or without industrialization, or in the event of a product not industrialized in national territory when the landed product remains in national territory for a period of no less than thirty calendar days, will be given a payment credit; that is, the landed product will be recognized for the next annual period, giving them access to the Costa Rican resource at a lower cost or even free of charge, which constitutes an economic subsidy for foreign fleets, and does not conform to the principles of sustainable development and conservation of hydrobiological resources. Specifically, he considers that the challenged norm violates:

• 1)The principle of legal reserve (reserva legal), because the Executive Branch cannot, by decree, establish a tax, a national contribution, much less an exoneration. The challenged article grants credits on the payment of license fees (cánones), which constitutes a subsidy for foreign tuna vessels that land their product in national territory. This also violates the principle of equality of public burdens since, in these cases, the public treasury receives nothing, and the State perceives less income from licenses.
• 2)The right to the environment, because granting credits on the payment of license fees (subsidy) for foreign tuna vessels that land their product in national territory is not consistent with the protection of marine resources and conservation measures to prevent overexploitation. When overexploitation of the tuna resource occurs, food security and thereby the health of families in coastal zones who subsist on this resource are affected. Furthermore, it violates the international regulations ratified by Costa Rica that require the protection of natural resources. Thus, the norm being so permissive, and by subsidizing the international fleet in this way, offering a practically free cost for our tuna wealth, with the international fleet as its sole usufructuary, conditions are created for a massive degradation of our resources by this fleet.

III.The legitimacy of the plaintiff in this case.- The plaintiff has sufficient legal standing to claim the unconstitutionality of the challenged norm, without it being necessary for him to have a prior pending matter serving as a basis for this action. The foregoing is because he acts in defense of an interest that concerns the national community as a whole, such as the right to the environment. Therefore, the plaintiff is perfectly legitimized to act directly, in light of the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Likewise, this is a matter whose constitutionality may be reviewed through this channel, since it refers to a regulatory norm. In addition, the plaintiff fulfilled the requirements stipulated in Articles 78 and 79 of the Law of procedure. In conclusion, the present action is admissible; therefore, the object and merits of the matter must be immediately addressed.

IV.Regarding the methodology for analyzing the action.- To facilitate the study of the challenged regulation, we begin with a Considerando that explains the general scope of the challenged regulation, to then specifically examine the constitutionality of the challenged Article 11, under the arguments given by the plaintiff and the coadjuvants.

V.In general, regarding the "Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco".- As indicated by the Procuraduría General de la República in its report, the Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco is based on the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Convention for the Strengthening of the Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (CIAT), among others; therefore, its analysis cannot be carried out without first considering the main precepts contained in those regulations. The Procuraduría explains that, during the sixtieth meeting of the CIAT, Costa Rica was recognized a purse-seine tuna fishing capacity of 9,364 cubic meters usable by purse-seine vessels; therefore, the challenged decree comes to regulate the use of this purse-seine tuna fishing capacity that was recognized to the country.

The regulation establishes that the Executive Branch, through an executive agreement, will assign partial volumes of the fishing capacity (Article 2 of the regulation), having as a limit the maximum availability that has been authorized to the country (9,364 cubic meters) and based on the technical recommendation of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería and the studies prepared by INCOPESCA, which will materialize through a temporary fishing capacity authorization (Article 3 of the regulation). The granting of a temporary authorization is also subject to compliance with a series of conditions (Article 4 of the regulation). Additionally, the shipowner or owner of the vessel must sign an operational agreement with the MAG, which must have the official endorsement of the Fisheries Authority of the flag country (Article 5 of the regulation). Likewise, according to Article 10, to obtain said temporary authorization, foreign-flagged purse-seine tuna vessels must pay an annual fee equivalent to $150 per metric ton of gross carrying capacity registered in the CIAT Regional Register or based on the provisions of an international tonnage certificate.

Now, the challenged Article 11 establishes a credit right applicable to the referred annual fee. Thus, from the total payable for the fee established in Article 10, the tuna vessel may discount the percentage it has landed for commercialization in national plants with or without industrialization, or when the landed product remains in the country for at least 30 calendar days. In the same sense is Article 55 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, whose incentive was challenged via a similar unconstitutionality action, 14-11148-0007-CO. The Procuraduría indicated that the ultimate purpose of this type of norm is to ensure that the Costa Rican State can immediately and directly utilize the marine resources, specifically the tuna fisheries, existing in its Exclusive Economic Zone, and promote local supply, which is part of the policies it is authorized to implement. In its report, INCOPESCA also provides relevant information, indicating that the basic principle of the questioned credit was to encourage foreign vessels, which can catch tuna anywhere in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (OPO), within the guidelines of the Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (CIAT), to leave the caught product to be processed by national processing industries, thereby additionally stimulating the business sector and the creation of jobs in areas that socially require this stimulus, such as the province of Puntarenas.

Thus, the catch of the tuna quota assigned per vessel must pay a fee (canon) of $150 per metric ton, where it is true that, as of today, these are foreign vessels, but this is justified by the fact that Costa Rica has not nationalized a single vessel dedicated to catching tuna with purse-seine nets. INCOPESCA also adds that, historically, Costa Rica had never before made use of its tuna quota within the CIAT framework, because, not having a tuna fleet, it had not been able to quantify the benefits of said quota. Taking into account the preceding context, we now proceed to the examination of the constitutionality of the challenged article.

VI.Regarding the constitutionality of the challenged article.- As stated, the challenged Article 11 is closely related to Article 10 of the same regulation. The latter establishes the amount that foreign-flagged purse-seine tuna vessels must pay for the annual fee to use the fishing capacity. Meanwhile, Article 11 establishes the credit recognized to them on the payment, when *the percentage of the annualized total landing in Costa Rica of the catch made during the immediately preceding authorization year by a purse-seine tuna vessel is effectively landed in national territory for its commercialization from national plants, with or without industrialization, or, in the event of a product not industrialized in national territory, when the landed product remains in national territory for a period of no less than thirty calendar days.* The obligation to land in the ports of the State has its origin in the Law of the Sea (Article 62.4.h of the Convention on the Law of the Sea) and in the sovereignty rights that coastal States exercise over their exclusive economic zone for the purposes of exploration and exploitation, conservation, and management of the natural resources, both living and non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil.

There is an obligation, established in Article 61 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, for coastal States to determine the allowable catch of the living resources in their Exclusive Economic Zone based on the most reliable scientific data available, ensuring the preservation of the resources. According to the challenged regulation, if the foreign-flagged purse-seine tuna vessel lands the tuna catch in national territory for its commercialization, then a credit right is generated for it on the payment of the annual fee established in the aforementioned Article 10. In the plaintiff's opinion, said credit operates as an exoneration, and as such, can only have been established by law (violation of the principle of legal reserve), and furthermore, said credit favors the overexploitation of tuna (violation of the right to the environment). For their part, both the Procuraduría General de la República and INCOPESCA in their reports, as well as the passive coadjuvants, consider that no such unconstitutionality exists.

The *former* states that, contrary to what the plaintiff considers, norms like the one challenged seek to ensure that maritime resources are utilized within the country and that uncontrolled plundering of the same does not occur, and also allow for cross-checking of information that enables the State, through the various competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight. *INCOPESCA* states that Article 11 of the questioned decree has brought nothing but benefits to the State through the fee collected for the tuna quota. Furthermore, the country could not, in one fell swoop, overturn the rights granted with their expectations, as this could eventually put public finances at risk and the good reputation Costa Rica has internationally, in the face of potential claims for damages caused to them. Likewise, the argument of overexploitation of the resource cannot be accepted. The CIAT studies on the sustainability of the resource indicate precisely that catch quotas have been assigned per country to guarantee the sustainable development of the tuna fishing fleet that operates in the OPO.

Therefore, it concludes, it is not acceptable to speak of subsidies to the foreign industry, since they do not exist, but rather what is generated is a mere expectation, which would only be fulfilled if the national tuna industry is supplied. On their side, the *passive coadjuvants* state that the overexploitation of fishery resources is not related to the fishing by international tuna vessels but to factors such as the uncontrolled growth of fleets, free access to the resource, an increase in fishermen, among others. The challenged norm does not establish a subsidy, but rather a consideration for compliance with the condition set forth by the norm. They conclude that the alleged defects of unconstitutionality do not exist in the factual grounds of the plaintiff, nor in the supposed substantive legal arguments. Thus, this Chamber proceeds to examine each argument of the plaintiff separately. 1) The allegation of violation of the principle of legal reserve: From reading the challenged Article 11, it follows that the credit right established therein cannot be defined as an exoneration nor equated to the non-payment of a tax.

Technically, it operates as an incentive to encourage the foreign-flagged purse-seine tuna vessel to land the caught tuna in national territory for its commercialization, according to the quota assigned to the country, or for that landing to remain in national territory for no less than 30 days. Now, for the reasons stated, no violation of the principle of legal reserve is observed. *First,* the creation of incentives is a power of INCOPESCA, derived from its own law, specifically from Article 5, where the legislator authorized it to extend, suspend, cancel, and grant incentives. Thus, INCOPESCA, by express legal norm, is authorized to extend, suspend, cancel fishing, marine hunting, and vessel construction permits, as well as licenses and concessions for production in the field of aquaculture, to the individuals and legal entities that request them, and to establish the amounts to be charged for licenses, as well as to regulate and manage incentives.

Furthermore, we find Articles 2, section 20, 7, and 49 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, all of which reinforce the competence of INCOPESCA to create, grant, cancel, control, and establish the amounts to charge for the fishing licenses they deem necessary. From the foregoing, it follows then that there is no violation of the principle of legal reserve, because Article 11 of the challenged regulation serves to develop a power legally granted to INCOPESCA. *Second,* as stated, the credit regulated in the challenged Article 11 is not a tax nor an exoneration, but an incentive, which, moreover, is not being created by the regulation, but by virtue of the legal competences of INCOPESCA, as stated. By virtue of the foregoing, it is not found that Article 11 of the Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco violates the principle of legal reserve. 2) The allegation of violation of the right to the environment: the plaintiff argues that the regulated credit increases the supposed environmental and economic damages arising from fishing activity. However, for the reasons stated, this allegation is also dismissed.

In the first place, said argument assumes the verification of a factual premise, which is not appropriate for examination through an acción de inconstitucionalidad. This type of constitutional process is not the proper avenue for confirming the overexploitation of tuna fishing, nor for determining whether a causal relationship exists between the granting of the contested credit and overexploitation. In the second place, the country's fishing capacity is determined through an entire procedure, with Costa Rica having been recognized, during the sixtieth meeting of the CIAT, a purse-seine tuna fishing capacity of 9364 cubic meters usable by purse-seine vessels. This action does not present arguments or concrete facts that would determine that said capacity is being exceeded. In the third place, to engage in tuna fishing in the jurisdictional waters of Costa Rica, a license, a temporary unloading permit, and payment of the corresponding fee are required.

As an additional requirement for foreign-flagged vessels, they must register with INCOPESCA and sign a contract with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Therefore, as the Procuraduría literally indicates in its report: “to engage in tuna fishing in the waters of Costa Rica, it is necessary to have a license and the current registration of the vessel, and it is also necessary to have a temporary permit that establishes the fishing capacity authorized for each vessel, without the sum of all these authorizations being able to exceed the purse-seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country, which must also be complemented with Article 7 of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura… rules such as those contained in decree 37386-MAG serve to ensure that the purse-seine tuna fishing capacity authorized for the country is not exceeded, and they also contain incentives aimed at guaranteeing local supply.” In the fourth place, it is the State's authority to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus preventing the entirety of the extracted resource from being used abroad.

As the Procuraduría indicates in its report, “contrary to what the claimant considers, rules such as the one contested seek to ensure that maritime resources are utilized within the country and that there is no excessive plundering of the same, and they also allow for cross-referencing of information that enables the State, through the various competent bodies, to exercise greater oversight.” This Chamber is not unaware of the fact that has been reported in the news (March 16, 2017), to the effect that modifications in the granting of licenses could double revenues, since according to data from the study conducted by the Economic Policy Research Center (Centro de Investigaciones en Política Económica, Cinpe), of the National University (Universidad Nacional, UNA), and the Marviva foundation, while the commercial value of the catches is about $62 million annually, the country's income from fishing licenses for that species is $904,694 per year, that is, 1.45% of the commercial value of the species.

Likewise, according to said data, of the total catch estimated at 25,000 metric tons annually, only 23% remains in Costa Rica and the rest of the tuna catch is transferred to other countries where it is processed. However, this does not make the rule itself unconstitutional; rather, it is a matter that INCOPESCA itself and the Executive Branch must evaluate to determine if adjustments should be made. But this in no way leads to the unconstitutionality of the rule per se.

VII.Conclusion.- Article 11 of the “Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco” does not violate the principle of legal reserve because it not only involves the establishment of an incentive and not the exoneration of a tax, but the establishment of incentives is a legal competence of INCOPESCA. Nor does it violate the right to the environment, since it is not proven that a causal relationship exists between the granting of the contested credit and overexploitation. Furthermore, tuna fishing in Costa Rica is regulated (a license, a temporary unloading permit, payment of the corresponding fee, and signing a contract and registering, in the case of foreign-flagged vessels, are required), and it is the State's authority to establish the incentives it deems appropriate aimed at achieving local supply and thus preventing the entirety of the extracted resource from being used abroad. It is incumbent upon the Executive Branch itself and INCOPESCA to determine if modifications in the granting of licenses should be made to duplicate revenues. The establishment of incentives per se does not make the rule unconstitutional, nor does it per se constitute a violation of the environment. Therefore, by virtue of the foregoing, the dismissal of this action is warranted, as is hereby ordered.

VIII.Magistrate Cruz notes.- As the majority opinion itself indicates, it has been reported in the news (March 16, 2017), that modifications in the granting of licenses could double revenues, since according to data from the study conducted by the Economic Policy Research Center (Centro de Investigaciones en Política Económica, Cinpe), of the National University (Universidad Nacional, UNA), and the Marviva foundation, while the commercial value of the catches is about $62 million annually, the country's income from fishing licenses for that species is $904,694 per year, that is, 1.45% of the commercial value of the species. Likewise, according to said data, of the total catch estimated at 25,000 metric tons annually, only 23% remains in Costa Rica and the rest of the tuna catch is transferred to other countries where it is processed. From which I consider that in these cases, quasi-gratuitous licenses are granted, to the detriment of public funds. Under the same reasoning applied to the collective bargaining agreements that have been contested in this Constitutional Chamber, there exists a disproportionate and irrational administration of public funds in these cases, which would warrant a constitutional control in this regard.

IX. DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE CASE FILE

The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic nature or produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial”, approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The action is declared WITHOUT MERIT. Magistrate Cruz notes.

Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L. Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A. José P. Hernández G.

75/03

*140133310007CO* Res. Nº 2017-011405 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas y dieciséis minutos de diecinueve de julio de dos mil diecisiete.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por [Nombre 001], cédula [Valor 001], en su condición de representante legal de la [Nombre 002], cédula jurídica número [Valor 002], para que se declare inconstitucional ARTICULO 11 DEL DECRETO EJECUTIVO Nº 37386 DEL 9 DE JULIO DE 2012. Intervinieron también en el proceso el representante de la Procuraduría General de la República, el representante del Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura -INCOPESCA-.

RESULTANDO:

1. 1Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 10:36 horas del 22 de agosto de 2014, el accionante solicita en resumen que se declare la inconstitucionalidad del Artículo 11 del Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 37386 del 9 de julio de 2012. La norma se impugna en cuanto establece el reconocimiento de créditos sobre el pago de los cánones para licencias de pesca, que constituye un subsidio para las embarcaciones atuneras extranjeras que descargan su producto en territorio nacional; no se trata de embarcaciones pertenecientes a pequeños empresarios nacionales, sino que son máquinas gigantes que extraen gran cantidad de recursos de nuestros mares, por el que pagan un canon muy bajo, de ciento cincuenta dólares por tonelada métrica, cuando no desembarcan el atún en territorio costarricense y, sin razón alguna, se les reconoce el crédito de pago, con lo que el erario nacional no percibe nada del aprovechamiento de los recursos hidrobiológicos de la nación y fomenta una sobreexplotación del recurso marítimo.
2. 2A efecto de fundamentar la legitimación que ostenta para promover esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, señala que proviene de los intereses difusos sobre los recursos marinos y el interés por la protección del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado de toda la ciudadanía.
3. 3Por resolución de las 8:00 horas del 5 de setiembre de 2014 (visible a folio 024 del expediente), se le dio curso a la acción, confiriéndole audiencia a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura –INCOPESCA-.
4. 4Los edictos a que se refiere el párrafo segundo del artículo 81 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional fueron publicados en los números 189, 190 y 191 del Boletín Judicial, de los días 02, 03 y 06 de octubre del 2004 (folio 075 del
5. 5La Procuraduría General de la República rindió su informe. Señala que: Sobre la legitimación: La tiene por el interés difuso en la protección de los recursos naturales, reconocidos por esa Sala mediante Voto 5593-2012. Sobre el fondo del asunto: En orden al artículo 11 del Reglamento para la Utilización de la Capacidad de Pesca de Atún de Cerco reconocida a Costa Rica en el seno de la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical, pero se requiere una interpretación conforme la Constitución y el Derecho del Mar. El análisis de la norma no puede realizarse en forma separada, en primera instancia por cuanto la misma tiene una íntima relación con el artículo 10 del mismo reglamento, en el tanto este establece el monto a pagar por concepto del derecho anual cuando se cuente con la autorización o licencia temporal de la capacidad de pesca. En este sentido, es claro que el crédito opera sobre el pago de dicha licencia, mismo que de conformidad al artículo 5 de la Ley del INCOPESCA se encuentra facultado para extender, suspender, cancelar e incluso otorgar incentivos.Sea que INCOPESCA por norma legal expresa se encuentra autorizado para extender, suspender, cancelar los permisos de pesca, caza marina y construcción de embarcaciones, así como las licencias y concesiones para la producción en el campo de la acuicultura, a las personas físicas y jurídicas que los soliciten y establecer los montos por cobrar por las licencias, así como para regular y manejar los subsidios que el Estado asigne al sector pesquero y de acuacultura. Esta norma debe integrarse con los artículos 2 inciso 20, 7 y 49 de la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, todos los cuales vienen a reforzar la competencia del INCOPESCA para crear, otorgar, cancelar, controlar y establecer los montos a cobrar de las licencias de pescas que consideren necesarias. De lo anterior se desprende, que no existe violación al principio de legalidad, por cuanto como se ha reiterado el marco regulatorio de la actividad es complejo y se encuentra establecido en una gran cantidad de normas, de cuya integración se desprende que el reglamento en su integridad viene a desarrollar una facultad legalmente otorgada al INCOPESCA, siendo que la licencia o autorización que se regula a través del Decreto 37386-MAG técnicamente no puede ser considerado un impuesto y en igual sentido el crédito regulado en el artículo 11 no se constituye en una exoneración.Añade que la licencia es el acto administrativo que habilita al particular para ejercer la respectiva actividad y que su ejercicio y otorgamiento en el caso particular se encuentra avalado por la norma legal, que autoriza que su regulación, en atención a lo complejo del tema y el constante cambio que se genera en el campo, sea desarrollado por norma reglamentaria según remisión considerado como una violación al principio de reserva legal, ya que este desarrollo reglamentario aún en materia tributaria ha sido avalada por este Tribunal Constitucional –Votos 2001-06641 y 2004-05015- por lo que se reitera, el procedimiento de otorgamiento de permisos o licencias temporales de capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco no resulta en el caso particular violatorio al principio de legalidad. En igual sentido, el crédito regulado en el artículo 11 no es una exoneración, sino un incentivo que en tesis de principio, no es inconstitucional ni contrario a Derecho de Mar, sino que encuentra su fundamento en las potestades que tiene el Estado para proteger sus recursos marítimos.En cuanto a los supuestos daños ambientales y económicos que surgen a raíz de la actividad que desarrollan las pesquerías y que al criterio del recurrente se ven incrementados con el crédito regulado en el artículo 11 del reglamento 37386-MAG. De conformidad con la propia norma, concretamente el numeral 13, estos recursos provenientes del cobro de los derechos anuales de uso de la capacidad de pesca de atún establecidos en el presente Reglamento, serán destinados exclusivamente a financiar el cumplimiento de los fines y objetivos establecidos por la Ley al INCOPESCA, especialmente a financiar el desarrollo y fomento de las pesquerías de atún y especies afines y la participación del país en los Organizaciones Regionales de Ordenamiento Pesquero (OROP’s) y otros Foros Internacionales de interés para la pesca y acuicultura, así como para contribuir a la aplicación e implementación del Plan nacional de Desarrollo Pesquero y Acuícola, específicamente para mejorar la capacidad científica nacional y consolidar el recurso humano y técnico con formación académica en investigación y manejo pesquero.Un porcentaje anual de un 15% del total de los recursos generados por la asignación de capacidad de pesca de atún, será destinado por el INCOPESCA a conformar un fondo para recursos concursables en materia de desarrollo de proyectos de investigación en materia pesquera, que podrán acceder las universidades públicas del país. En relación al supuesto daño ambiental, tal y como se estableció en el informe rendido dentro del expediente 14-11148-0007-CO, resulta claro que el Estado tiene la obligación expresa de asegurar la conservación, protección y el desarrollo sostenible de los recursos hidrobiológicos –ver el artículo 1, 8, 5.h, 5.g de la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura-. En relación expresa a la pesca de atún la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura le dedica un régimen especial, establecido conforme al artículo 49, que en su ejercicio o práctica requiere una licencia de pesca expedida exclusivamente al efecto, también debe contar con un permiso o licencia temporal de descarga, por parte del Poder Ejecutivo y pagar el correspondiente derecho, lo cual además asegura que una solo embarcación no consumirá de forma única la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco que tiene autorizada el país, sino que dicha capacidad debe ser distribuida en forma proporcional entre las embarcaciones de red de cerco.Cuando se trata de licencias para embarcaciones de bandera extranjera, se otorgan si de registran ante el INCOPESCA –norma que se desarrolla en el decreto 37386-mag, artículo 7, ver Voto 10484-2004-. Es decir que se ha entendido que ese artículo 7, en cuanto permite la pesca del atún a embarcaciones extranjeras, constituye un ejercicio legítimo de las potestades que el Derecho del Mar le reconoce al Estado de Costa Rica, no obstante normas como las contenidas en el decreto 37386-MAG lo que vienen es a asegurar que no se supere la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco que tiene autorizado el país, y que además contiene incentivos que buscan garantizar el abastecimiento local. De acuerdo con el artículo 60 de la Ley de Pesca, la pesca atunera puede efectuarse en la zona económica exclusiva de Costa Rica, el Derecho de Mar claramente establece que los Estados tienen derecho a imponer a las embarcaciones que pesquen en sus aguas jurisdiccionales, incluyendo la zona económica exclusiva, la obligación de descargar parte o la totalidad de su captura en algún puerto nacional, esta obligación puede cubrir a las embarcaciones de bandera extranjera –ver artículo 62.4.h de la Convención de Derecho de Mar-.Es notorio que en forma expresa, el Derecho del Mar impone al Estado de Costa Rica un deber de determinar la captura permisible en la zona económica exclusiva con base en criterios técnicos, fidedignos y actualizados para asegurar la conservación y restablecimientos de las especies sujetas a pesca, incluyendo el atún. Esto esta implícito en el artículo 6 de la Constitución, pues es claro que una derechos de soberanía y una afectación ilegítima de los recursos naturales. En síntesis, del análisis realizado, claramente se desprende que el país tiene una obligación de velar por la conservación y manejo adecuado de los recursos vivos marítimos, y que en el caso de atún de cerco, existe normativa que garantiza el ejercicio de controles sobre la actividad con estos fines y que le impone al Estado el análisis de las condiciones en que se realiza la actividad a efectos de que no se supere el límite de capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco que tiene autorizado el país.De igual forma es potestad del Estado el establecer los incentivos que considere oportunos tendientes a lograr el abastecimiento local y evitar así que la totalidad del recurso extraído sea utilizado en el extranjero. En otras palabras, contrario a lo que considera el accionante, normas como la impugnada buscan que los recursos marítimos sean aprovechados en el país y que no se dé un saqueo desmedido de los mismos, y permitan además ejercer controles cruzados de información que le permiten al Estado a través de los diferentes órganos competentes ejercer una mayor fiscalización. Con fundamento en lo expuesto, este Órgano Asesor concluye que el artículo 11 el Reglamento número 37386-MAG, per se, no resulta inconstitucional.
6. 6Rinde su informe Walter Cruz Sandoval, en su calidad de Presidente a.i. del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura y señala: El accionante hace un grave error de interpretación y de lectura, sobre el fin del decreto ejecutivo recurrido, ya que el mismo no se dirige al otorgamiento de licencias de pesca para embarcaciones extranjeras, sino para la asignación de cuotas de pesca, de la que tiene Costa Rica como Estado Parte de la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical, CIAT, sin que esta acción signifique que se otorga una licencia para pescar atún en nuestras aguas jurisdiccionales. El principio básico del crédito cuestionado fue el estimular que dichas embarcaciones que pueden capturar atún en cualquier lugar del Océano Pacífico Oriental –OPO-, dentro de los lineamientos del CIAT, dejen el producto capturado para que sea procesado por las industrias nacionales y con ello se estimule adicionalmente del sector empresarial, la creación de fuentes de empleo en zonas que socialmente requieren este estimulo, como lo es la provincia de Puntarenas.La captura de la cuota de atún asignada por embarcación, debe pagar un canon de $150,00 por tonelada métrica, donde es cierto que al día de hoy, se trata de embarcaciones extranjeras, pero esto tiene justificación en el sentido de que Costa Rica, no tiene nacionalizada una sola embarcación que se dedique a la captura de atún con red de cerco, amén de que al igual debe respetar los principios de pesca responsable que determina la CIAT, para garantizar la sostenibilidad del producto pesquero de atún a que se hace referencia los lineamientos y disposiciones de la CIAT. El referido artículo 11 del decreto cuestionado, en apariencia podría extralimitar sus alcances. Al abordar un tema que podría ser propio de una Ley de la República, según la óptica del accionante, sin embargo, al día de hoy la norma no se había cuestionado y no ha hecho más que traer beneficios al Estado por el canon que se cobra por la cuota de atún.Por ello en cumplimiento del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, es que se establecen los alcances del decreto impugnado, sin que ello, signifique que debemos lesionar nuestros intereses como Estado de buscar mejorar las finanzas del Estado, al asignar cuotas de atún, por cuanto nadie podría afirmar que el recurso de atún existente en el OPO, es exclusivo de Costa Rica, al ser un recurso altamente migratorio, por ende adquiere la nacionalidad de la embarcación que lo captura en aguas fuera de la zona económicamente exclusiva, por lo que no es de recibo lo afirmado por el accionante en cuanto a la violación del numeral 50 de la Constitución Política. No podemos aceptar los argumentos, en cuanto al motivo para impugnar la norma es la sobreexplotación del recurso. Los estudios de la CIAT, sobre la sostenibilidad del recurso, indican que precisamente se han asignado cuotas de captura por país, a efecto de garantizar el desarrollo sostenible de la flota pesquera atunera que faena en el OPO.De toda suerte si prosperara la acción interpuesta en contra del numeral cuestionado, no se podría ver afectada la disposición de Costa Rica de aprovechar la cuota de atún a que tiene derecho en el OPO, por cuanto igual sigue asignado, lógicamente sin otorgar el beneficio del crédito que otorga el artículo 11 del decreto impugnado. La norma impugnada no ha sido emitida por el INCOPESCA, sino que es manifestación de voluntad del Ejecutivo por medio de un decreto ejecutivo, por ende no podríamos cuantificar los eventuales daños que sufriría nuestra economía, si se limitan los derechos que con anterioridad fueron dados a la industria atunera. Igualmente no es de recibo hablar de subsidios a la industria extranjera, ya que no existen, sino que se genera una mera expectativa, que se cumpliría si solo si, se abastece a la industria atunera nacional.
7. 7Rinde su informe Luis Gerardo Dobles Ramírez, en su calidad de coadyuvante pasivo y señala: Similares a los argumentos expuesto por el Presidente a.i. del Instituto de Pesca y Acuicultura, añade que no hay roce de constitucionalidad, con el artículo 7 de la Constitución Política, ya que, el artículo 11 del Decreto impugnado no establece ningún subsidio, en relación con la supuesta violación del artículo 21 del a Carta Fundamental, pues la pesca de atún con redes de cerco, no se ejecuta en aguas jurisdiccionales costarricenses o en la zona económica de Costa Rica, según se entiende del artículo 9 del Decreto impugnado. La normativa indicada y el artículo impugnado no produce ninguna disminución ni sobrepesca sobre dicho recurso atunero, ni sobre otros recursos pesqueros, se ha determinado que la operación y el proceso del atún en Costa Rica, por medio de la industria conservera o enlatadora nacional, genera beneficios directos e indirectos, reales, cuantificables en toda la cadena de riqueza y producción asociada al atún.En relación al artículo 50 constitucional y el derecho a un ambiente sano y económicamente equilibrado es falso, improcedente e insostenible aplicarlo a la pesca de atún con redes de cerco, ya que es irrelevante para pretender establecer que esta actividad es responsable del deterioro de la pesca y no a todas las demás pesquerías. La norma cuestionada no tiene relación alguna con la explotación masiva de los recursos del mar y menos en la zona económica de Costa Rica, donde el mismo no se aplica por lo que es absolutamente indemostrable científicamente pretender responsabilizar de dicha situación a las flotas cerqueras atuneras a novel del OPO y menos aún establecer una correlación de ello con la aplicación de lo dispuesto en el artículo 11 cuestionado en esta acción, la cual es completamente improcedente. De mas está señalar que existe menos relación respecto del artículo 11 cuestionado y los artículos 69 y 89 de la Constitución Política, toda vez que no existe la supuesta sobreexplotación del recurso atún indemostrado por el accionante, se evidencia y comprueba que la aplicación del Decreto Ejecutivo 37386-MAG genera beneficios fiscales y recursos para el país y para el INCOPESCA como autoridad pesquera nacional y la distribución de la riqueza y los beneficios a nivel de país y de nuestra población, lo cual demuestra que nuestros legisladores y el país ha realizado en esta materia, una valoración, aprovechamiento, protección y conservación del recurso en forma idónea y conforme los principios y pilares fundamentales de nuestra Constitución, por lo cual solicito el rechazo total de la acción de inconstitucionalidad y su improcedencia.
8. 8Mediante resolución de las 15:25 horas del 3 de noviembre de 2014 se tuvieron por contestadas las audiencias conferidas a la Procuraduría General de la República y el INCOPESCA. Además, en cuanto a las coadyuvancias: En el caso concreto, los gestionantes LUIS GERARDO DOBLES RAMÍREZ y OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, en representación de TXOPITUNA SRL, solicitaron oportunamente ser tenidos como coadyuvantes pasivos; sin embargo, el representante de la última incumplió lo ordenado por resolución de 14:16 hrs de 24 de octubre; en consecuencia, procede admitir únicamente la coadyuvancia del primero y rechazar la de TXOPITUNA SRL, dado que por ese incumplimiento no puede ser oída ni, por ende, tenida como coadyuvante. (folio 127 del expediente). El primero indica en resumen que, la administración del recurso tiene un enfoque regional y sus regulaciones provienen de un organismo internacional, la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (CIAT), de la cual Costa Rica es cofundador y miembro vigente, como parte contratante, las cuales son aceptadas por los países miembros.El Programa de Ordenamiento del recurso atunero, por parte de la CIAT tiene más de 60 años de existencia y es considerado por los científicos a nivel mundial en manejo de pesquerías, como uno de los programas de manejo pesquero más exitosos del mundo. Luego mediante escrito del 07 de noviembre del 2014 OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, en representación de TXOPITUNA SRL presenta lo que denomina “recurso de revocatoria” en contra de la resolución de la Sala donde se rechaza su coadyuvancia, por cuanto indica se cumplió con la prevención realizada.
9. 9Se prescinde de la vista señalada en los artículos 10 y 85 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, con base en la potestad que otorga a la Sala el numeral 9 ibídem, al estimar suficientemente fundada esta resolución en principios y normas evidentes, así como en la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal.
10. 10En los procedimientos se ha cumplido las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta el Magistrado Cruz Castro; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.De previo sobre la coadyuvancia pasiva de OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, en representación de TXOPITUNA SRL.- Mediante resolución de las 15:25 horas del 3 de noviembre de 2014 se tuvieron por contestadas las audiencias conferidas a la Procuraduría General de la República y el INCOPESCA. Además, en cuanto a las coadyuvancias, se admitió la presentada por el gestionante LUIS GERARDO DOBLES RAMÍREZ, pero se rechazó la presentada por OSCAR MENA VILLEGAS, en representación de TXOPITUNA SRL. Esto último, por cuanto, al parecer no había cumplido con la prevención realizada mediante resolución de las 14:16 hrs de 24 de octubre. Sin embargo, examinando el expediente y observando que, contrario a lo que se dijo, el gestionante sí cumplió con la prevención, se admite su coadyuvancia pasiva.

II.Objeto de la impugnación.- El accionante impugna el artículo 11 del Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 37386 del 9 de julio de 2012 que es “Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de Atún de Cerco reconocida a Costa Rica en el seno de la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical”. El artículo impugnado dispone lo siguiente:

“Artículo 11.- El porcentaje de la descarga total anualizada en Costa Rica de la captura efectuada durante el año de la autorización, inmediato anterior por un barco atunero con red de cerco, que sea efectivamente descargada en territorio nacional para su comercialización desde plantas nacionales con o sin industrialización, generará proporcionalmente un derecho de crédito en el pago a ser efectuado por el mismo barco, en el período inmediato siguiente del respectivo derecho anual. En el evento de producto no industrializado en territorio nacional, solamente se otorgará el derecho de crédito descrito en este artículo, cuando el producto descargado permanezca en territorio nacional por un período no menor de treinta días naturales.” Estima el accionante que tal norma es inconstitucional por violentar los artículos 21, 50, 69 y 89 de la Constitución Política, en virtud de que se estipula que las embarcaciones atuneras extranjeras con red de cerco que descarguen en territorio costarricense el producto, para su comercialización desde plantas nacionales con o sin industrialización o en el evento de producto no industrializado en territorio nacional cuando el producto descargado permanezca en territorio nacional por un período no menor de treinta días naturales, se les dará un crédito de pago, es decir, se le reconocerá el producto descargado para el siguiente período anual, teniendo acceso al recurso costarricense a un menor costo o incluso gratuito, lo cual constituye un subsidio económico para las flotas extranjeras, y no se adecua a los principios de desarrollo sostenible y conservación de los recursos hidrobiológicos. En concreto, considera que la norma impugnada viola:

• 1)El principio de reserva legal, por cuanto no puede por vía de decreto el Poder Ejecutivo establecer un impuesto, una contribución nacional, ni mucho menos una exoneración. El artículo impugnado otorga créditos sobre el pago de los cánones para licencias, el cual constituye un subsidio para las embarcaciones atuneras extranjeras que descargan su producto en territorio nacional. Lo cual además viola el principio de igualdad de las cargas públicas pues en estos casos el erario público no percibe nada, siendo que se perciben menores ingresos por concepto de licencias para el Estado.
• 2)El derecho al ambiente por cuanto, otorgar créditos sobre el pago de los cánones para licencias (subsidio) para las embarcaciones atuneras extranjeras que descargan su producto en el territorio nacional, no es acorde con la protección de los recursos marinos y con las medidas de conservación para evitar la sobreexplotación. Al darse la sobreexplotación del recurso atunero, se ve afectada la seguridad alimentaria y con ello la salud de las familias de zonas costeras que subsisten con este recurso. Además de que se violenta la normativa internacional ratificada por Costa Rica que obliga a la protección de los recursos naturales. Así que, siendo la norma tan permisiva, y al subsidiar de esta manera a la flota internacional ofreciendo un costo prácticamente gratuito de nuestra riqueza atunera y siendo la flota internacional su único usufructuante, se generan condiciones para una depravación masiva de nuestros recursos por parte de esta flota.

III.La legitimación del accionante en este caso.- El actor ostenta legitimación suficiente para demandar la inconstitucionalidad de la norma impugnada, sin que para ello resulte necesario que cuenten con un asunto previo que les sirva de base a esta acción. Lo anterior porque acude en defensa de un interés que atañe a la colectividad nacional en su conjunto, como lo es el derecho al ambiente. Por lo que el actor se encuentra perfectamente legitimado para accionar en forma directa, a la luz de lo que dispone el párrafo 2° del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Asimismo, se trata de materia cuya constitucionalidad procede revisar en esta vía, pues se refiere a una norma reglamentaria. Además, el actor cumplió los requisitos estipulados en los numerales 78 y 79 de la Ley de rito. En conclusión, la presente acción es admisible, por lo que debe entrarse de inmediato a discutir el objeto y el fondo del asunto.

IV.Sobre la metodología de análisis de la acción.- Para facilitar el estudio de la normativa impugnada, se inicia con un considerando que explica de manera general los alcances del Reglamento impugnado, para luego examinar en concreto la constitucionalidad del artículo 11 impugnado, bajo los argumentos dados por el accionante y los coadyuvantes.

V.En general sobre el “Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco”.- Tal como lo indica la Procuraduría General de la República en su informe, el Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco, tiene su fundamento en la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Desarrollo del Mar y la Convención para el fortalecimiento de la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (CIAT) entre otras, por lo que su análisis no puede realizarse sin antes tomar en consideración los principales preceptos que sobre el particular dichas normas contienen. Explica la Procuraduría que, durante la sexagésima reunión de la CIAT, se le reconoció a Costa Rica una capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco de 9364 metros cúbicos utilizables por embarcaciones de red cerco, por lo que el decreto impugnado viene a regular la utilización de esta capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco que le fue reconocida al país.

El reglamento establece que el Poder Ejecutivo, a través de un acuerdo ejecutivo, asignará volúmenes parciales de la capacidad de pesca (artículo 2 del reglamento), teniendo como límite la disponibilidad máxima que le ha sido autorizada al país (9364 metros cúbicos) y partiendo de la recomendación técnica que el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería y de los estudios elaborados por el INCOPESCA, lo cual se materializará a través de una autorización temporal de capacidad de pesca (artículo 3 del reglamento). El otorgamiento de autorización temporal además se encuentra sujeto al cumplimiento de una serie de condiciones (artículo 4 del reglamento). Adicionalmente, el armador o propietario de la embarcación deberá suscribir un convenio operativo con el MAG, el cual deberá contar con el aval oficial de la Autoridad de Pesca del país de bandera (artículo 5 del reglamento). Asimismo, según el artículo 10, para contar con dicha autorización temporal, los barcos atuneros con red de cerco de bandera extranjera deberán cancelar un derecho anual equivalente a $150 por cada tonelada métrica de capacidad bruta de acarreo inscrito en el Registro Regional de la CIAT o con base en lo estipulado en certificación de arqueo internacional.

Ahora bien, el artículo 11 impugnado, instaura un derecho de crédito aplicable al derecho anual referido. Así que, del total a pagar por concepto del derecho establecido en el artículo 10, el barco atunero podrá descontar el porcentaje que haya descargado para comercialización en plantas nacionales con o sin industrialización, o bien cuando el producto descargado permanezca en el país al menos de 30 días naturales. En el mismo sentido está el artículo 55 de la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura cuyo incentivo fue impugnado mediante similar acción de inconstitucionalidad 14-11148-0007-CO, la Procuraduría indicó que la finalidad última de este tipo de normas es asegurar que el Estado costarricense pueda aprovechar, de forma inmediata y directa, los recursos marinos, específicamente las pesquerías de atún, existentes en su Zona Económica Exclusiva, y promover el abastecimiento local, lo cual es parte de las políticas que se encuentra autorizado a realizar.

En su informe, INCOPESCA también aporta información relevante, indica que el principio básico del crédito cuestionado fue estimular que las embarcaciones extranjeras, que puedan capturar atún en cualquier lugar del Océano Pacífico Oriental (OPO), dentro de los lineamientos de la Comisión Interamericana del Atún Tropical (CIAT), dejen el producto capturado para que sea procesado por las industrias procesadoras nacionales y con ello se estimule adicionalmente del sector empresarial, la creación de fuentes de empleo en zonas que socialmente requieran este estímulo, como lo es la provincia de Puntarenas. Así la captura de la cuota de atún asignada por embarcación, debe pagar un canon de $150 por tonelada métrica, donde es cierto que al día de hoy, se trata de embarcaciones extranjeras, pero esto tiene justificación en el sentido de que Costa Rica, no tiene nacionalizada una sola embarcación que se dedique a la captura de atún con red de cerco.

Agrega además el INCOPESCA que, históricamente Costa Rica, nunca antes había hecho uso de su cuota de atún en el marco de la CIAT, por cuanto al no tener flota atunera, no se había logrado cuantificar los beneficios de dicha cuota. Tomando en cuenta el contexto anterior, se procede a continuación al examen de constitucionalidad del artículo impugnado.

VI.Sobre la constitucionalidad del artículo impugnado.- Tal como se dijo, el artículo 11 impugnado tiene íntima relación con el artículo 10 del mismo reglamento. Este establece el monto que deben pagar los barcos atuneros con red de cerco de bandera extranjera, por concepto del derecho anual para utilizar la capacidad de pesca. Mientras que el artículo 11 establece el crédito que se les reconoce en el pago, cuando el porcentaje de la descarga total anualizada en Costa Rica de la captura efectuada durante el año de la autorización, inmediato anterior por un barco atunero con red de cerco, sea efectivamente descargada en territorio nacional para su comercialización desde plantas nacionales con o sin industrialización, o bien, el evento de producto no industrializado en territorio nacional, cuando el producto descargado permanezca en territorio nacional por un período no menor de treinta días naturales.

La obligación de descarga en los puertos del Estado, tiene su origen en el Derecho del Mar (artículo 62.4.h de la Convención de Derecho del Mar) y en los derechos de soberanía que los Estados ribereños ejercen sobre su zona económica exclusiva para los fines de naturales, tanto vivos como no vivos, de las aguas suprayacentes al lecho y del lecho y el subsuelo del mar. Existe una obligación, establecida en el artículo 61 de la Convención de Derecho del Mar, de los Estados ribereños de determinar la captura permisible de los recursos vivos en su Zona Económica Exclusiva con fundamento en los datos científicos más fidedignos que se disponga, asegurando la preservación de los recursos. Según la normativa impugnada, si el barco atunero con red de cerco de bandera extranjera descarga la captura de atún en territorio nacional para su comercialización, entonces, se le genera un derecho de crédito en el pago del derecho anual establecido en el artículo 10 mencionado.

En criterio del accionante, dicho crédito opera como una exoneración, y como tal, sólo puede haberse establecido por ley (violación al principio de reserva legal), y además, dicho crédito favorece la sobreexplotación de atún (violación al derecho al ambiente). Por su parte, tanto la Procuraduría General de la República, como el INCOPESCA en sus informes, así como los coadyuvantes pasivos, consideran que no se da tal inconstitucionalidad. La primera expresa que, contrario a lo que considera el accionante, normas como la impugnada buscan que los recursos marítimos sean aprovechados en el país y que no se dé un saqueo desmedido de los mismos, y permitan además ejercer controles cruzados de información que le permiten al Estado a través de los diferentes órganos competentes ejercer una mayor fiscalización. INCOPESCA expresa que, el artículo 11 del decreto cuestionado no ha hecho más que traer beneficios al Estado por el canon que se cobra por la cuota de atún.

Además, no podría el país de un solo golpe derribar los derechos otorgados con sus expectativas, ya que ello eventualmente podría poner en riesgo las finanzas públicas y el buen prestigio que a nivel internacional tiene Costa Rica, ante eventuales reclamos por cobros de daños y perjuicios que se les ocasionen. Asimismo que, no se puede aceptar el argumento de la sobreexplotación del recurso. Los estudios de la CIAT sobre la sostenibilidad del recurso, indican que precisamente se han asignado cuotas de captura por país, a efecto de garantizar el desarrollo sostenible de la flota pesquera atunera que faena en el OPO. Por lo que concluye, no es de recibo hablar de subsidios a la industria extranjera, ya que los mismos no existen, sino que lo que se genera es una mera expectativa, que se cumpliría solo si, se abastece a la industria atunera nacional. Por su lado los coadyuvantes pasivos expresan que la sobreexplotación de los recursos pesqueros no tiene relación con la pesca de las embarcaciones atuneras internacionales sino con factores como crecimiento sin control de flotas, libre acceso al recurso, incremento de pescadores, entre otros.

La norma impugnada no establece un subsidio, sino de una contraprestación por el cumplimiento de la condición que plantea la norma. Concluyen que no existe en los fundamentos fácticos del accionante, ni en los supuestos argumentos de fondo de derecho, los supuestos vicios de inconstitucionalidad. Así entonces, procede esta Sala a examinar cada argumento del accionante por separado. 1) El alegato de violación al principio de reserva legal: De la lectura del artículo 11 impugnado se deriva que, el derecho de crédito allí establecido no puede definirse como una exoneración ni equipararse al no pago de un impuesto. Técnicamente opera como un incentivo, para fomentar que el barco atunero con red de cerco de bandera extranjera descargue, en territorio nacional para su comercialización, la captura de atún realizada, según la cuota asignada al país o bien que esa descarga permanezca en territorio nacional durante no menos de 30 días.

Ahora bien, conforme las razones que se indican, no se observa violación alguna al principio de reserva legal. En primer lugar, la creación de incentivos es una facultad del INCOPESCA, deriva de su propia ley, concretamente del artículo 5, donde el legislador le autoriza a extender, suspender, cancelar y otorgar incentivos. Así que INCOPESCA, por norma legal expresa, se encuentra autorizado para extender, suspender, cancelar los permisos de pesca, caza marina y construcción de embarcaciones, así como las licencias y concesiones para la producción en el campo de la acuicultura, a las personas físicas y jurídicas que los soliciten y establecer los montos por cobrar por las licencias, así como para regular y manejar los incentivos. Además, nos encontramos con los artículos 2 inciso 20, 7 y 49 de la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, todos los cuales vienen a reforzar la competencia del INCOPESCA para crear, otorgar, cancelar, controlar y establecer los montos a cobrar de las licencias de pescas que consideren necesarias.

De lo anterior se desprende entonces que, no existe violación al principio reserva legal, pues el artículo 11 del reglamento impugnado viene a desarrollar una facultad legalmente otorgada al INCOPESCA. En segundo lugar, tal como se dijo, el crédito regulado en el artículo 11 impugnado, no es un impuesto ni una exoneración, sino un incentivo, que además, no está siendo creado por el reglamento, sino en virtud de las competencias legales de INCOPESCA, según se dijo. En virtud de lo anterior, no se encuentra que el artículo 11 del Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco, sea violatorio del principio de reserva legal. 2) El alegato de violación al derecho al ambiente: el accionante argumenta que el crédito regulado incrementa los supuestos daños ambientales y económicos que surgen de la actividad pesquera. Sin embargo, por las razones que se indican, dicho alegato también se desestima.

En primer lugar, dicho argumento supone la verificación de un supuesto fáctico, que no procede examinarse mediante una acción de inconstitucionalidad. No corresponde mediante este tipo de proceso constitucional la constatación de la sobreexplotación de la pesca de atún, ni tampoco, si existe una relación causal entre el otorgamiento del crédito impugnado y la sobreexplotación. En segundo lugar, la capacidad pesquera del país se determina mediante todo un procedimiento, reconociéndosele a Costa Rica, durante la sexagésima reunión de la CIAT, una capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco de 9364 metros cúbicos utilizables por embarcaciones de red cerco. No dándose en esta acción argumentos ni hechos concretos que lleguen a determinar que se está excediendo dicha capacidad. En tercer lugar, para practicar la pesca de atún en las aguas jurisdiccionales de Costa Rica se requiere una licencia, un permiso temporal de descarga y pagar el correspondiente derecho.

Siendo exigido como requisito adicional a las embarcaciones de bandera extranjera, que se registren ante INCOPESCA y que suscriban un contrato con el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería. Por lo que, tal como literalmente lo indica la Procuraduría en su informe: “para la práctica de la pesca del atún en las aguas de Costa Rica, se demanda contar con una licencia y con el registro vigente de la embarcación, y se debe además contar con un permiso temporal que establece cual es la capacidad de pesca que tiene autorizada cada embarcación, sin que la sumatoria de todas estas autorizaciones pueda superar la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco que tiene autorizado el país, lo cual además se debe complementar con el artículo 7 de la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura… normas como las contenidas en el decreto 37386-MAG lo que vienen es a asegurar que no se supere la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco que tiene autorizado el país, y que además contiene incentivos que buscan garantizar el abastecimiento local.” En cuarto lugar, es potestad del Estado establecer los incentivos que considere oportunos tendientes a lograr el abastecimiento local y evitar así que la totalidad del recurso extraído sea utilizado en el extranjero.

Como indica la Procuraduría en su informe, “contrario a lo que considera el accionante, normas como la impugnada buscan que los recursos marítimos sean aprovechados en el país y que no se dé un saqueo desmedido de los mismos, y permiten además ejercer controles cruzados de información que le permiten al Estado a través de los diferentes órganos competentes ejercer una mayor fiscalización.” Esta Sala no desconoce el hecho que ha trascendido a nivel noticioso (16 de marzo del 2017), en el sentido de que, modificaciones en la entrega de licencias podrían duplicar los ingresos, pues según datos del estudio realizado por el Centro de Investigaciones en Política Económica (Cinpe), de la Universidad Nacional (UNA), y la fundación Marviva, mientras el valor comercial de las capturas es de unos $62 millones anuales, el ingreso al país por licencias de pesca de esa especie es de $904.694 al año, es decir, el 1,45% del valor comercial de la especie.

Asimismo, según dichos datos, de la captura total estimada en 25.000 toneladas métricas anuales, solo el 23% se queda en Costa Rica y el resto de la pesca atunera se traslada a otros países donde se procesa. Sin embargo, ello no hace inconstitucional la norma en sí misma, sino que es una cuestión que el propio INCOPESCA y el Poder Ejecutivo deben valorar para determinar si procede realizar ajustes. Pero en modo alguno ello lleva a la inconstitucionalidad de la norma per se.

VII.Conclusión.- El artículo 11 del “Reglamento para la utilización de la capacidad de pesca de atún de cerco” no resulta violatorio del principio de reserva legal por cuanto, no sólo se trata del establecimiento de un incentivo y no de la exoneración de un impuesto, sino que el establecimiento de incentivos es una competencia legal del INCOPESCA. Tampoco viola el derecho al ambiente por cuanto, no se logra probar que exista una relación causal entre el otorgamiento del crédito impugnado y la sobreexplotación. Además, la pesca de atún en Costa Rica está regulada (se requiere de una licencia, un permiso temporal de descarga, pagar el correspondiente derecho y suscribir un contrato y registrarse, en caso de embarcaciones de bandera extranjera), siendo potestad del Estado establecer los incentivos que considere oportunos tendientes a lograr el abastecimiento local y evitar así que la totalidad del recurso extraído sea utilizado en el extranjero. Compete al propio Poder Ejecutivo y a INCOPESCA determinar si procede realizar modificaciones en la entrega de licencias para duplicar los ingresos. El establecimiento de incentivos per se no hace inconstitucional la norma, ni ello constituye per se una violación al ambiente. Por lo tanto, en virtud de lo anterior, se impone la desestimatoria de esta acción, tal como en efecto se dispone.

VIII.El Magistrado Cruz pone nota.- Conforme la misma redacción de mayoría lo indica, ha trascendido a nivel noticioso (16 de marzo del 2017), que modificaciones en la entrega de licencias podrían duplicar los ingresos, pues según datos del estudio realizado por el Centro de Investigaciones en Política Económica (Cinpe), de la Universidad Nacional (UNA), y la fundación Marviva, mientras el valor comercial de las capturas es de unos $62 millones anuales, el ingreso al país por licencias de pesca de esa especie es de $904.694 al año, es decir, el 1,45% del valor comercial de la especie. Asimismo, según dichos datos, de la captura total estimada en 25.000 toneladas métricas anuales, solo el 23% se queda en Costa Rica y el resto de la pesca atunera se traslada a otros países donde se procesa. De lo cual estimo que en estos casos se dan licencias cuasigratuitas, en perjuicio de los fondos públicos. Bajo el mismo razonamiento que se aplica en las convenciones colectivas que han sido impugnadas en esta Sede Constitucional, existe una desproporcionada e irracional administración de los fondos públicos en estos casos, que ameritaría un control de constitucionalidad al respecto.

IX. DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE

Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.

Por tanto:

Se declara SIN lugar la acción. El Magistrado Cruz pone nota.

Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L. Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A. José P. Hernández G.

75/03