Denial of use permit in island zone applying the precautionary principleDenegación de permiso de uso en zona insular aplicando principio precautorio

N°174-2009 TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN TERCERA. II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, at fifteen hours thirty-five minutes on January thirtieth, two thousand nine.- Municipal appeal, filed by "Cocoteros del Mar, Sociedad Anónima", represented by its general agent without limit of sum Nombre101188, who is of legal age, married, a merchant, a resident of San José, against the agreement adopted by the Municipal District Council of Paquera, in ordinary session Nº384 of May first, two thousand eight.- Judge Fernández Argüello drafts the opinion, and:

CONSIDERING:

I).- The following has been proven: 1) That by public deed number one hundred seven, executed before Notary Julio Corvetti at fifteen hours on April fifth, nineteen sixty-eight, Mr. Alberto París Molina transferred to Nombre101189 and Richard Gantt Harris, the lease rights over an area of twelve hectares on Harper Island, also known as Tortuga Island, as stated in contract number six hundred ninety-nine.I, of file number seven thousand eight hundred forty-eight of the Land Section of the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización) (folios 1 and 2); 2) That the previous transfer was communicated to the Institute of Lands and Colonization on April sixteenth, nineteen sixty-eight, an entity that granted its authorization at eleven hours on March sixth, nineteen sixty-nine (folios 3 and 5); 3) That the transfer of the aforementioned lease contract number 699-I was approved by the cited Institute, at ten hours on June twenty-fifth, nineteen sixty-nine (folio 6); 4) That subsequently, in a deed granted before notaries Bernal Ulloa Flores and Julio Corvetti Sáenz, at ten hours on June twenty-first, nineteen sixty-nine, Mr. Robert Law Thompsom sold to Richard Gantt Harris, his right over the mentioned lease (folios 7 and 8) 5) That on February twenty-seventh, nineteen seventy-three, Mr. Nombre101190 applied for a lease of 126 hectares on Tortuga Island (folios 10 to 13); 6) That Mr. Alberto París Molina, in a brief dated March 14, nineteen seventy-three, requested the renewal of the contract he transferred to Gantt (folio 17); 7) That on August sixteenth, nineteen seventy-four, Mr. Gustavo Iglesias Zeller, Vice-President of "Grupo Ejecutivo Cariari S.A.", submitted to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, ICT), a proposal for the execution of a tourism development project on Tortuga Island (folios 19 to 30); 8) That the Board of Directors of the I.C.T., in session 2493 of August nineteenth, nineteen seventy-four, article 1, awarded a lease for tourism exploitation on Tolinga and Alcatraz Islands or Tortuga Island to the firms Proin & Cariari S.A. Likewise, it authorized the Administration to sign the contract (folios 31 and 32); 9) That in relation to Mr. Nombre101190's application, the inspection and the respective publication of the edict were carried out (folios 40, 41 and 48); 10) That on September twenty-second, nineteen seventy-five, Mr. Gustavo Iglesias Zeller, representing "Desarrollo e Inversiones Tortuga S.A.", requested the ICT not to execute the tourism project on the Island, without liability for the parties, a request that was accepted by the Entity's Board of Directors in session Nº2610 of October sixth of the same year (folios 71 to 75 and 78); 11) That the Board of Directors of the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, ITCO), in a resolution at nine hours thirty-five minutes on November nineteenth, nineteen seventy-five, granted lease contract Nº2970-I to Mr. Nombre101191, for a lot of 126 hectares on Tortuga Island (folios 81 and 82); 12) That Mr. Nombre101190, in a brief dated December fourth, nineteen seventy-five, addressed to the Land Leasing Section of the ITCO, requested authorization for the transfer of his lease rights 2970-I on the island to Nombre101188 (folios 86 and 87); 13) That the Board of Directors of the ITCO authorized the previous transfer, at seven hours on January twenty-first, nineteen seventy-six (folio 97); 14) That Mr. Nombre101188 appears paying the lease amount to the ITC since November 1976 (folios 100 to 102); 15) That on December twenty-first, nineteen seventy-seven, Mr. Nombre101188 requested the extension of the contract, which expired on November nineteenth, nineteen eighty (folios 106 to 109, 114); 16) That the lease contract was extended in minute 651 of March fourteenth, nineteen seventy-eight of the Municipality of Puntarenas, for the period from November 28, nineteen eighty to November twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-five (folios 117 and 118); 17) That Messrs. Nombre101188 and Francisco Cubero Ramírez, incorporated on December eleventh, nineteen eighty-one the company called "Cocoteros del Mar, Sociedad Anónima" (folios 136 to 144); 18) That Mr. Nombre101188 requested the Municipality of Puntarenas to transfer lease contract 2970-I to the company Cocoteros del Mar S.A., which was approved in session 637 of February twenty-third, nineteen eighty-two, article 2 subsection g (folios 147 to 149); 19) That on October fifth, nineteen eighty-six, the Appraisal Department of the Directorate General of Direct Taxation valued the 126 hectares of Tortuga Island and determined that it contained 120 hectares for agricultural use and 6 hectares for tourism use (folio 156); 20) That on April seventeenth, nineteen eighty-nine, Cocoteros del Mar requested the Municipality to authorize the National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional, IGN) to demarcate the fifty meters of the public beach zone (zona pública de playa) on Tortuga Island, which was approved in ordinary session Nº421 of April twenty-fourth of the same year, article 2, subsection II-1. The demarcation was carried out and reported in La Gaceta Nº25 of February fifth, nineteen ninety (folios 162 to 164, 176); 21) That in a form received on November thirtieth, two thousand, "Cocoteros del Mar S.A." filed with the Municipality of Puntarenas, a formal application for a concession (concesión) of Tortuga or Tolinga Island, for the use that "the regulatory plan (plan regulador) indicates" (folios 293 and 294); 22) That the local entity, in ordinary session No. 311, of September third, two thousand one, article 3, subsection h), authorized Cocoteros del Mar S.A., to hire a consulting company to prepare the Regulatory Plan for the restricted area of Tolinga Island (Tortuga) "to eventually enable the granting in favor of that same entity of a concession right over the area" (folios 147 to 149); 23) That the company hired the company Eco Plan, for the preparation of the regulatory plan (folio 302); 24) That the National Geographic Institute (IGN) carried out a new demarcation of the coastal sector of Tolinga Island, between the following approximate Lambert coordinates of map MBCR 1/50000 Sheet Tambor Plate16562: 195267 N- 438236-E, Plate16563, 195171 N -439139 E NIE62- 438293 E (notice 05-02, Gaceta Nº 86 of May 5, 2005, folio 311); 25) That in official communication ZMT-86-01-05 of January nineteenth, two thousand six, the coordinator of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre, ZMT) of Puntarenas, stated the following: "By this means we inform you about the result of your application to obtain a land use permit (uso de suelo) located at Dirección11243. In this regard, we inform you that with instructions and advice from the Legal Department of this Municipality regarding the analysis carried out by this department on your file, we indicate that your proceeding has irregularities from the beginning because it originates from an assignment of rights or transfer and because these are illegal practices that were occurring and being granted by the Municipality which did not conform to the provisions of Law 6043, of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, especially in its article 45. Therefore, it is not possible to continue with the respective proceeding, with the purpose of you obtaining a land use permit and we will proceed to archive the liabilities of your file. If you agree to restart the proceeding under a new file number, you must submit to this office the following documentation (...) You are granted 15 days from receipt of this notification to present what you deem appropriate. It should be noted that if you need any document(s) from the file to be archived that may be useful for the new file, we are fully willing to transfer them to you" (folio 313); 26) That against said official communication 86-01-05, the company filed a motion to reconsider (revocatoria) and appeal (apelación) (folios 316 to 320); 27) That in official communication ZMT-101-01-06 of January thirtieth, two thousand six, the motion to reconsider was rejected and the appeal was admitted (folio 324); 28) That on March twentieth, two thousand seven, Cocoteros del Mar S.A., requested the Municipal District Council of Paquera de Puntarenas, to grant a use permit (permiso de uso) on Tortuga Island, between National Geographic Institute (IGN) boundary markers 1 to 4 with an area of 4,334 square meters and twenty-three square decimeters, in order to install some rustic structures (ranchos) on the site. It was indicated in the request that: "The aforementioned facilities will be used by tourists traveling on excursions or who arrive at the site by their own means, whose attention will be the responsibility of the permit holder. The validity period of the use permit would be subject to the effective possibility of granting concessions in the coastal area of interest, and the estimation of a fee as pecuniary consideration would be necessary" (folios 329 to 342); 29) That the Municipal District Council of Paquera, by notification made on September thirteenth, two thousand seven, informed Cocoteros del Mar S.A. of the existence of unauthorized constructions in the public zone of the island, according to a notarial act of the inspection carried out on the site, and the existence of fences and "private property" signs. It granted 15 days to submit exculpatory evidence (folios 349 to 351); 30) That the company, in a writing dated the twenty-sixth of the same month and year, referred to the notarial act that served as the basis for the previous notification, alleging that it was contrary to the Notarial Code, and requested the nullity of the notification made as illegal (folios 352 to 356); 31) That the Intendant of Paquera, in official communication ZMT-0101-10-07 of October first of that same year, rejected the alleged nullity (folios 365 to 368); 32) That on the following November 14, Cocoteros del Mar S.A., referred to official communication ZMT-0101-10-07, refuting it, and in turn reporting on the progress in the preparation of the regulatory plan (folios 379 to 382); 33) That in official communication ZMT-0129-01-08 of January twenty-ninth, two thousand eight, the municipal intendant informed Cocoteros del Mar S.A., that he would proceed to clean up the entire sector of the public zone of the island "mainly the structures and beach implements that are occupying that entire sector," with which the company expressed its agreement (folios 394, 395 to 397); 34) That the Municipal District Council, in ordinary session Nº384 of May first, two thousand eight, rejected the application for land use and constructions (folios 405 to 408); 35) Against the foregoing, the company filed a motion to reconsider and appeal (folios 411 to 417); 36) That the Council, in extraordinary session Nº392 of June tenth, rejected the motion to reconsider and admitted the appeal (folio 423).- II).- It was not proven: 1) That the constructions located on Tolinga or Tortuga Island, visible in the photographs on folios 346 to 348, had a municipal construction permit. No reliable evidence was sought in this regard.- III).- In its appeal, the company's representative states that the challenged agreement contains a series of serious errors, as well as procedural and substantive defects that absolutely invalidate it.- First, he complains that a motion to reconsider and appeal against resolution ZMT-0101-10-07 of the Municipal Intendant has not been resolved, which in his opinion shows disorder and disinterest in the handling of the case.- That contrary to what the Council affirms, permission was indeed granted to him to build in the restricted area of the lot he possesses, as stated in document 2847; that he did not request permission to build a cabin, but to set up some rustic structures (ranchos) of certain characteristics, on the understanding that they are removable, that is, without permanent adherence to the ground. This, he affirms, with the aim of proposing a viable solution for his represented party, aimed at improving the conditions of the tourist visitation area and thereby organizing the activities carried out there. That the Regulatory Plan is currently in the process of being prepared, by a consulting company hired for this purpose by his represented party, and that as he indicated to the Municipal District Council, the final proposal is subject to the state definition regarding the new requirements demanded by the Ministry of Environment. Moreover, that the company requested and was received in a hearing to explain the Plan's proposal, so the alleged ignorance of the municipality in this regard is not true. That within the concession application file managed by the company for the restricted area of Tortuga Island, there is construction permit No. 2847 approved in session 421 of April 24, 1989 and that, furthermore, he has in his favor the existence of lease contracts and their respective extensions, granted in due course by the ITCO, and that he has the legal status of occupant over the restricted area of Tortuga Island, given that his management of said coastal sector dates back to before Law 6043 came into force in 1977. That consequently, there is numerous documentation attesting to the existing constructions in the place and their age, which have always been made with municipal permits.- That it is indeed possible to grant a use permit in the place -given the absence of a regulatory plan-, as well as to authorize temporary constructions, but that the Municipality, by denying both possibilities, confuses the concept of a permit with that of a concession, which in his opinion is totally inconsistent and mistaken. That this denial lacks any foundation and is based on merely subjective assessments that are also imprecise, contradictory, and false, and he requests that it be declared as such.- IV).- The Tribunal limits its analysis to the challenged agreement, adopted by the Municipal District Council of Paquera in ordinary session Nº384 of May first, two thousand eight, whereby it denied an application filed by the company Cocoteros del Mar S.A., for the granting of a use permit on Tortuga Island, between National Geographic Institute (IGN) boundary markers 1 to 4, in an area of 4,334 square meters and 23 square decimeters, for the purpose of installing some rustic structures (ranchos) in the place, to be used for attending to tourists traveling on excursions or who arrive at the site by their own means, under the responsibility of the permit holder.- As background, the Tribunal notes that, as alleged, the company occupied the island for a long time; in fact, it was its lessee until the year nineteen ninety-five, under a contract signed in due course by the Municipality of Puntarenas, which has already expired due to the fulfillment of the term.- However, to date, neither a concession nor a use permit has been granted to Cocoteros del Mar S.A., although it applied for both before the Municipal District Council of Paquera.- The first request is pending resolution, and the second -as stated- was denied in the act challenged here.- Next, the reasons given by the Council for such denial are analyzed, in order to determine whether or not they justify that decision.- V).- As a first matter, it is essential to remember that the insular territories of our country are, in their entirety, public domain assets that form part of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and that, moreover, by express provision of Law 6043, they are subject to a special regime, which transcends the common one regulating the other territories that make up that zone.- The legislator was particularly cautious on the subject, to the point of requiring legislative approval for concessions that may eventually be granted on national islands, a particular care that mutatis mutandi must also be applied to the study and analysis, not only of that type of act, but also of any others that municipalities or other competent bodies may issue in those territories, as is the case with use permits.- This Tribunal, in judgment Nº250-2008 of eleven hours on April twenty-ninth, two thousand eight, stated in this regard:

"Islands require a concession from the State, as they are a public domain asset belonging to the Nation (Nación) -article 6 of the Political Constitution, 3.1 and 75 of the Water Law N° 276 of August 26, 1942, articles 1, 10, 11 of the Law of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone-. Islands and islets form part of the maritime terrestrial zone and are susceptible to concession with the exception of islands subject to a special regime, such as Isla el Coco, San Lucas, Caño, Cabo Blanco, Negritos, and Pájaros. Pursuant to the provisions of article 42, last paragraph of Law N° 6043, '...If the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, legislative approval will be necessary' (emphasis added). In the same direction, article 37 ibidem provides that tourism development projects on islands and islets declared tourist islands require prior legislative authorization. By virtue of the fact that it is an area that forms part of the maritime terrestrial zone and a Nation asset, the ordinary legislator, in full harmony with numeral 121 subsection 14) of the Political Charter, provided in the cited numeral of the Law of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, that this type of concession requires legislative approval. It must be clear that Municipalities are mere administrators of the aforementioned zone and that the ownership of the same belongs to the 'Nation', according to the classification of assets made by the Constitutional Chamber (Vid Judgment N° 2006-00454); which implies a very special ownership - it belongs to all members of the Nation-, a concept that surpasses that of belonging to a specific Public Administration and even the concept of the State understood as a global legal entity representing that collectivity. The legislative approval required by the Law of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone for this type of concession is an act of control, which, due to the nature of the body performing it, includes political and legality aspects and not only the latter -as the plaintiff understands it- since the legislative intervention modifies the original, essentially administrative, processing regime provided for in the Law of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone. Consequently, it is with legislative approval, and not before, that the concessions granted could achieve their full perfection. The administrative contract that in this case has been signed 'is not complete, nor does it produce natural effects', until the legislative approval occurs (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber 06-454)." The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice recently also referred to the subject, establishing some principles that reinforce that special character of the islands and islets.- Said Chamber stated:

"IV.- The first numeral of the Law of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, number 6043, provides for the demaniality or public domain nature of the maritime terrestrial zone, by stating that it forms part of the national heritage belonging to the State and, therefore, is inalienable and imprescriptible. In accordance with canon 9 ejusdem, said zone is constituted by the strip of two hundred meters wide along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the ordinary high-water mark and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide. It adds that, for all legal purposes, it also comprises the islands, islets, and maritime rocks, as well as any land or natural formation that protrudes from the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Isla del Coco is excepted, which is under the direct domain and possession of the State, and those other islands whose domain or administration is determined in that law or in special laws. That zone is composed of two sections –article 10 ibídem-: 1) public zone (zona pública), which is the strip of 50 meters wide counting from the ordinary high-water mark and the areas that are uncovered during low tide; and 2) restricted zone (zona restringida), that is, the strip of the remaining 150 meters or the remaining lands in cases of islands. The islets, rocks, and other small areas and natural formations that protrude from the sea correspond to the public zone. For its part, canons 39 and 40 of said legislation provide that municipalities are competent to grant concessions in the restricted area of the maritime terrestrial zone located in their territory. Numeral 42 requires, for the administrative concession act to be effective, the approval of various decentralized entities as well as Parliament, depending on the destination and nature of the asset. That article of Law 6043 states: 'Concessions in tourist areas require the approval of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute. In other areas of the maritime terrestrial zone, approval shall correspond to the Institute of Lands and Colonization./ These institutes may not deny approval, except if it violates the law, which they must expressly indicate, in a reasoned form./ If the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Legislative Assembly shall be necessary.' (The underlining and highlighting in bold are not in the original). Regarding the concession of maritime islands or islets, the foregoing is reaffirmed by canon 43 of the Regulation of that Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P of December 16, 1977 and its amendments, by providing: 'In the case of concession applications for part or all of maritime islands or islets, the original of the concession contract and a copy of the file, with all the background of the case, must be sent to the Legislative Assembly for its approval.' For the sub júdice, it is of interest to determine whether the approval granted by Parliament is only one of legality, in which case it would be a regulated act, and, therefore, approval could only be denied for that reason; or if, on the contrary, it also covers aspects of opportunity and convenience. It is necessary to indicate, prior to the respective analysis, that the requirement of legislative approval, unlike what the appellant stated, finds a basis or constitutional foundation in canon 140 subsection 19 of the Political Charter. That norm states: 'The duties and powers that correspond jointly to the President and the respective Minister of Government are: ... 19) Sign administrative contracts not included in subsection 14) of article 121 of this Constitution, subject to submitting them to the approval of the Legislative Assembly when they stipulate exemption from taxes or fees, or have as their object the exploitation of public services, resources, or natural wealth of the State./ The legislative approval of these contracts shall not give them the character of laws nor exempt them from their administrative legal regime. What is provided in this subsection shall not apply to loans or other similar agreements, referred to in subsection 15) of article 121, which shall be governed by their special norms.' (The underlining is not in the original). That provision is clear in pointing out that, in the case of contracts whose object refers, among others, to resources or natural wealth of the State, such as maritime islands or islets, the approval of the Legislative Assembly is necessarily required, without this implying a variation in the applicable administrative legal regime. Notwithstanding that said constitutional provision refers to contracts signed by the Executive Branch, in the case of agreements signed by other bodies or entities, for example municipalities, if their object is one of those indicated therein, e.g., the 'resources or natural wealth of the State', as happens in the sub lite, in principle, legislative approval is not only convenient but necessary, by virtue of the public interest, or rather, the national interest involved, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in votes numbers 2006-454 of 14 hours 45 minutes on January 25, 2006 and 2007-2063 of 14 hours 40 minutes on February 14, 2007. On the other hand, from the literal wording of canon 42 of Law 6043, it is clearly deduced that what is provided in the second paragraph, i.e., the impossibility of denying approval except for legality reasons, only refers to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) and the Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO), today the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, IDA). Said paragraph states: 'These institutes may not deny approval, except if it violates the law, which they must expressly indicate, in a reasoned form.' (The underlining is supplied). Which institutes? Well, those indicated in the first paragraph: ICT and ITCO, today IDA. Likewise, it is symptomatic that what is indicated regarding the approval of the Legislative Assembly is located in a later paragraph of that provision, which makes one presume that it does not become mandatory, nor that the control is merely of legality. If it were not this way, the current third paragraph would have been inserted after the first, so that what was provided in the second would cover it. Moreover, it seems logical that it be so. There is no sense in having the Representatives assess whether the legal requirements for the granting of concessions were met. That is an administrative function that the municipality or the corresponding institute are called upon to do, and for which it would not be justified to elevate a concession file to the Legislative Assembly. In any case, any doubt about the way to interpret said canon 42 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, specifically, regarding the approval that Parliament must grant when the concession's object is an island or islet, was settled in the aforementioned judgment 454 of 14 hours 55 minutes on January 25, 2006 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, where, in what is of interest, it is indicated: 'XI.- OF THE USE AND EXPLOITATION OF ISLANDS AND ISLETS. ... For this reason, it is considered that the requirement of legislative approval in this type of contract (concession over islands and islets) is not only necessary but convenient, insofar as it acts as a form of political control over a 'Nation asset' of fundamental importance, being located in the territorial sea, over which the State exercises its sovereignty, in a complete and exclusive manner (article 6 of the Constitution). Likewise, a broad debate in the Legislative Plenary is useful and necessary, so that the representatives examine the object, purpose, opportunity, and legality of the concession. Note that the exploitation and use of this 'Nation asset' has strong economic, social repercussions, in addition to environmental and ecological ones, and even political ones; for which reason participation must be given to all represented factions ... XII.- CONTINUATION. (1).- Likewise, it is important to note that doctrine has understood that approval represents a declaration based on assessments of the merit, opportunity, utility, and legality of the act submitted for its knowledge; from which it is verified that the approving party does not cooperate in the formation of the act submitted for its approval; it only declares that the act submitted for its examination is useful and opportune, so as to consider fulfilled the condition on which the law makes the act's effectiveness depend. That is, that the legislative action in this matter acts as a conditioning factor for the legal effectiveness of this type of contract, insofar as the contract is not complete nor produces natural effects until this approval occurs; constituting a control, not only of legality, but also of a political nature.' Thus, in this case, the Legislative Assembly is not empowered to integrate its will into the contract it approves, since this was expressed by the entity that processed and before whom the concession was managed, that is, the respective municipality that formulates the consultation before the Assembly. Thus, the legislative body may approve or reject it in its entirety—not partially—depending on the opportunity, legality, and merits of the contract itself, but without modifying or transforming it, because the power to grant the concession corresponds exclusively to the municipalities. Therefore, any intervention by the Assembly regarding the content of concessions for islands or islets by legislators would render the act unconstitutional, to the detriment of municipal autonomy, constitutionally recognized in Article 170.” (Only the underlined portion is not from the original). In light of the foregoing precedent, it is clear that the approval given by the Legislative Assembly concerning concessions granted by municipalities regarding maritime islands or islets, is not only one of legality, but also, given its intrinsic nature (fundamentally political), encompasses aspects of opportunity and convenience, which implies that this is not a regulated act. On the contrary, there is a manifestation of first-degree governmental discretion (...)" (RES: 000771-F-S1-2008, at sixteen hours on the eighteenth of November two thousand eight).- VI).- Now, the first grievance of the appeal questions that the District Municipal Council's agreement indicated that the permit denial was based, among other reasons, on the fact that the interested party did not submit the concession application with the required requirements.- That reason is certainly not valid, as the assessment of the requirements for obtaining a concession is a matter to be addressed within the specific proceeding that the interested party initiated for that purpose, and not within the request for a land use permit (permiso de uso de suelo), which is the matter at hand here. On this specific topic, the District Municipal Council improperly confuses and mixes two procedures, which, although linked, always maintain their independence and must be resolved as such.- This is an irregularity in the act; however, and as will be seen, it is not of a substantial nature, as there are valid, reasonable grounds, in accordance with municipal powers, to decide as was done.- VII).- Another reason given for the permit denial is the current non-existence of a duly approved regulatory plan (plan regulador) (we do not analyze here the validity of a plan prepared by a private company, as that is not the subject of the appeal).- In this regard, it should be noted that, certainly, the approval of such a plan is not a sine qua non requirement for granting that type of permit—which by its very nature has precarious effects—however, if what is intended is to use a part of the restricted zone of the island for tourism purposes, which as stated has special legislative protection, at least it must be known with certainty which areas have such a vocation within the insular territory, and in accordance with a basic principle of planning and sustainable development (Organic Environmental Law - Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), in order to protect the zone, the type of use that will be or could be given to those areas must be known reliably, according to the particular conditions of the land, because granting a use permit cannot be separated from the technical criteria that exist on the land "vocation" (vocación).- According to the information in the case file, on Isla Tortuga there are lands of both tourism and agricultural vocation, as indicated by a Direct Taxation appraisal prepared several years ago; however, both areas are not clearly identified, neither by the Municipality nor by the interested party, at least this is not recorded in the documentation that makes up the administrative file, and in fact, the only thing that exists for now is the demarcation (amojonamiento) of the public zone by the National Geographic Institute (IGN).- Therefore, if to date it is not known even in a preliminary way which areas are exploitable for tourism, the Municipality is correct in using this circumstance as a criterion of prudence and reasonable exercise of its powers to deny the use permit, as well as the construction of any type of building on the site.- Furthermore, the Municipality has verified the existence of several constructions in the restricted zone of the island, and as this Office has been able to observe, there is no record that they were built with prior municipal authorization.- Although the appellant company disputes the value of an inspection carried out at the site, due to issues related to non-compliance with requirements of the notarial record drawn up and the method of notification, the truth is that the existence of the constructions is not disputed, as several photographs of them were even provided (folios 346 to 348), and it has also not been possible to prove, either at the municipal level or in this instance of improper hierarchy, that the company had a permit from the Municipality of Puntarenas for all of them. This circumstance—the non-existence of permits—could even lead to the demolition of what has been built, without prejudice to other types of liabilities, and under such conditions, it is reasonable and therefore lawful for the District Municipal Council to have chosen to first clarify that situation and deny the use permit, in order not to run the risk of authorizing the use of a public domain asset to someone who may have incurred violations of the legal system in the use of that specific zone.- VIII).- Likewise, the denial was based on the fact that, as of today, the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE) has not issued the certification of the protected area in that zone.- This circumstance is decisive, given that if there are forested areas on the island—as indeed exist—and whether or not there must be protected areas and their delimitation is still pending, the actions taken by the municipal authorities are consistent with the correct application of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), which governs environmental matters, given the need to protect, prior to granting any authorization on the island, the State's forest heritage (patrimonio forestal del Estado), in which case, jurisdiction over the matter, regarding them, would pass to the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET).- Note in this regard that the company itself stated in its appeal that the final proposal for the regulatory plan is subject to the state's definition regarding the new requirements demanded by the Ministry of Environment, and therefore this Office considers that the District Municipal Council of Paquera did nothing but guarantee the validity of constitutional Article 50, and to that extent, no illegality is found in its decision.- IX).- Finally, it is pertinent to refer to the appellant's complaint that an appeal for reversal (recurso de revocatoria) and further appeal (apelación) filed against resolution ZMT-0101-10-07 issued by the Municipal Intendente of Paquera has not been resolved.- From the information in the case file, it is noted that the District Municipal Council of Paquera, through a notification on September thirteenth, two thousand seven, informed Cocoteros del Mar S.A. of the existence of constructions without authorization in the public zone of the island, according to a notarial record of the inspection carried out at the site, and the existence of fences and "private property" signs, granting it 15 days to present exculpatory evidence (folios 349 to 351); the company, in a writing dated the twenty-sixth of the same month and year, referred to the notarial record that served as the basis for the previous notification, alleging it was contrary to the Notarial Code, and requested the annulment of the notification made due to illegality (folios 352 to 356); a petition that was denied by the Intendente of Paquera in official letter ZMT-0101-10-07 of the first of October of that same year (folios 365 to 368).- Now then, on the following November 14th, Cocoteros del Mar S.A. referred to official letter ZMT-0101-10-07, rebutting it and reporting on the progress in the preparation of the regulatory plan (folios 379 to 382).- This last writing is the only one that appears in the file in relation to the official letter invoked in the appeal, and from its text it cannot be inferred that it constitutes an appeal for reversal with a subsidiary further appeal, as this was not indicated in that brief. The interested party merely indicated that "in a timely manner and proper form I respond to points 2 and 3 of Official Letter ZMT-0101-10-07," giving a series of explanations from which it cannot be deduced in any way that ordinary appeals are being filed against the Intendente's decision.- To that extent, the omission alleged did not occur, and therefore this argument must be rejected.- X).- By virtue of all of the foregoing, the proper course is to confirm the challenged agreement, given that it is substantially in accordance with the administrative legal system.- Likewise, the administrative route must be deemed exhausted, as there is no further appeal against this decision.-

POR TANTO:

The appealed agreement is confirmed, and the administrative route is deemed exhausted.- Rose Mary Chambers Rivas Hubert Fernández Argüello I. Rocío Rojas Morales Municipal Cocoteros del Mar S.A. c/ Municipalidad de Paquera Nombre5139 2847 approved in session 421 of April 24, 1989, and that furthermore, it has in its favor the existence of lease contracts and their respective extensions, granted in their time by ITCO, and that it holds the legal status of occupant over the restricted zone of Isla Tortuga, given that its activity on said coastal sector dates back to before the entry into force of Law 6043 in 1977. That consequently, there is extensive documentation attesting to the existing constructions at the site and their age, which have always been carried out with municipal permits.- That it is indeed possible to grant a land-use permit (permiso de uso) at the site – given the lack of a regulatory plan (plan regulador) – as well as to authorize temporary constructions, but that the Municipality, by denying both possibilities, confuses the concept of a permit with that of a concession (concesión), which in its opinion is entirely incongruous and misguided. That this denial lacks any foundation and is based on merely subjective assessments that are also imprecise, contradictory, and false, and it requests that this be declared.- **IV).-** The Court limits its analysis to the challenged agreement, adopted by the District Municipal Council of Paquera in ordinary session No. 384 of May first, two thousand eight, by which it denied a request filed by the company Cocoteros del Mar S.A., seeking a land-use permit (permiso de uso) on Isla Tortuga, between National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional) boundary markers 1 through 4, in an area of 4,334 square meters and 23 square decimeters, for the purpose of installing some rustic structures (ranchos) at the site, to be used for serving tourists traveling on excursions or arriving at the location by their own means, at the permit holder's responsibility.- As background, the Court notes that, as alleged, the company has occupied the island for a long time; in fact, it was a lessee thereof until the year nineteen ninety-five, according to a contract signed in its time by the Municipality of Puntarenas, which has since expired due to fulfillment of the term.- However, as of today, neither a concession (concesión) nor a land-use permit (permiso de uso) has been granted to Cocoteros del Mar S.A., although it requested both from the District Municipal Council of Paquera.- The first proceeding is pending resolution, and the second – as stated – was denied in the act challenged here.- Next, the reasons given by the Council for such denial are analyzed to determine whether or not they justify that decision.- **V).-** As a first matter, it is essential to recall that the island territories of our country are, in their entirety, public domain assets that form part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), and furthermore, by express provision of Law 6043, they are subject to a special regime that transcends the common one regulating the other territories that make up that zone.- The legislator was particularly cautious regarding the issue, to the point of requiring legislative approval for any concessions (concesiones) that might eventually be granted on national islands, a particular care that *mutatis mutandi* must also be transferred to the study and analysis, not only of those types of acts, but also of any others that the municipalities or other competent bodies may issue in those territories, such as land-use permits (permisos de uso).- This Court, in judgment No. 250-2008 of eleven o'clock on April twenty-ninth, two thousand eight, stated in this regard:

*"Islands require a concession from the State, as they are a public domain asset belonging to the Nation – Article 6 of the Political Constitution, 3.1 and 75 of the Water Law No. 276 of August 26, 1942, Articles 1, 10, 11 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law. Islands and islets form part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and are susceptible to concession, with the exception of islands subject to a special regime, such as Isla del Coco, San Lucas, Caño, Cabo Blanco, Negritos, and Pájaros. According to the provisions of Article 42, last paragraph, of Law No. 6043, '...If the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, legislative approval shall be necessary' (emphasis not in original). In the same vein, Article 37 thereof provides that tourism development projects on islands and islets declared touristic require prior legislative authorization. By virtue of the fact that it is an area forming part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and an asset of the Nation, the ordinary legislator, in full harmony with Article 121, subsection 14) of the Political Charter, provided in the cited article of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law that this type of concession requires legislative approval. It must be clear that the Municipalities are mere administrators of the said zone and that ownership thereof belongs to the 'Nation,' according to the classification of assets made by the Constitutional Chamber (See Judgment No. 2006-00454); which implies a most special ownership – it belongs to all members of the Nation – a concept that surpasses that of belonging to a specific Public Administration and even the concept of the State understood as a global legal entity representing that collectivity. The legislative approval required by the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law for this type of concession is an act of control, which, by the nature of the body performing it, includes political and legality aspects, and not only the latter aspect – as the plaintiff understands it – since legislative intervention modifies the originally essentially administrative processing regime provided for in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law. Consequently, it is with legislative approval, and not before, that the granted concessions could reach their full perfection. The administrative contract that in this case has been signed 'is neither complete nor produces natural effects' until legislative approval occurs (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber 06-454)"*.

The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has also recently addressed the issue, establishing some principles that reinforce that special character of islands and islets.- Said Chamber stated:

***"IV.-** Article one of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, number 6043, provides for the public ownership or public domain nature of the maritime-terrestrial zone, stating that it forms part of the national patrimony belonging to the State and, therefore, is inalienable and imprescriptible. According to Canon 9 thereof, said zone is comprised of the strip of two hundred meters wide along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the ordinary high tide line and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide. It adds that, for all legal purposes, it also comprises maritime islands, islets, and rocky outcrops, as well as any land or natural formation protruding from the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Isla del Coco is excepted, which is under the direct ownership and possession of the State, and those other islands whose ownership or administration are determined in that law or in special laws. Said zone consists of two sections – Article 10 thereof –: 1) public zone (zona pública), which is the strip of 50 meters wide from the ordinary high tide line and the areas exposed during low tide; and 2) restricted zone (zona restringida), that is, the remaining strip of 150 meters or the remaining lands in the case of islands. Islets, rocky outcrops, and other small areas and natural formations protruding from the sea correspond to the public zone. For their part, Canons 39 and 40 of said legislation provide that the municipalities are competent to grant concessions (concesiones) in the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone located in their territory. Article 42 requires, for the administrative act of concession to become effective, the approval of several decentralized entities as well as Parliament, according to the destination and nature of the asset. That article of Law 6043 provides: 'Concessions in tourist areas require the approval of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute. In other areas of the maritime-terrestrial zone, approval shall correspond to the Institute of Lands and Colonization. / These institutes may not deny approval, unless it violates the law, which they must expressly indicate, in a reasoned manner. / **If the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Legislative Assembly shall be necessary.**' (The underlining and bold highlighting are not from the original). Regarding the concession of maritime islands or islets, the foregoing is reaffirmed by Canon 43 of the Regulation to that Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P of December 16, 1977, and its amendments, which provide: 'In the case of requests for concession over part or all of maritime islands or islets, the original of the concession contract and a copy of the file, with all the background of the case, must be sent to the Legislative Assembly for its approval.' For the sub judice, it is of interest to determine whether the approval granted by Parliament is solely one of legality, in which case it would be a regulated act, and, therefore, approval could only be denied on that ground; or if, on the contrary, it also encompasses aspects of opportunity and convenience. It is necessary to indicate, prior to the respective analysis, that the requirement for legislative approval, contrary to what the appellant in cassation indicated, finds constitutional basis or foundation in Canon 140, subsection 19, of the Political Charter. That norm provides: 'The joint duties and attributions of the President and the respective Minister of Government are: … 19) To sign administrative contracts not included in subsection 14) of Article 121 of this Constitution, subject to submitting them for the approval of the Legislative Assembly when they stipulate the exemption of taxes or rates, or have as their object the exploitation of public services, natural resources, or wealth of the State. / The legislative approval of these contracts shall not give them the character of laws nor exempt them from their administrative legal regime. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to loans or other similar agreements referred to in subsection 15) of Article 121, which shall be governed by their special norms.' (The underlining is not from the original). This provision is clear in stating that, in the case of contracts whose object is related to, among others, natural resources or wealth of the State, such as maritime islands or islets, the approval of the Legislative Assembly is necessarily required, without this implying a variation in the applicable administrative legal regime. Notwithstanding that said constitutional provision refers to contracts signed by the Executive Branch, in the case of agreements signed by other bodies or entities, for example municipalities, if their object is any of those indicated therein, for instance, 'natural resources or wealth of the State,' as is the case in the sub lite, in principle, not only is it advisable, but also necessary to have legislative approval, by virtue of the public interest, or rather, the national interest involved, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in votes numbers 2006-454 of 14 hours 45 minutes on January 25, 2006, and 2007-2063 of 14 hours 40 minutes on February 14, 2007. On the other hand, from the literal wording of Canon 42 of Law 6043, it is clearly deduced that what is provided in the second paragraph, i.e., the impossibility of denying approval except for reasons of legality, only refers to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) and the Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO), today the Institute of Agrarian Development (IDA). That paragraph states: '*These institutes may not deny approval* , unless it violates the law, which they must expressly indicate, in a reasoned manner.' (Underlining supplied). Which institutes? Those indicated in the first paragraph: ICT and ITCO, today IDA. Likewise, the fact that what is stated regarding the approval of the Legislative Assembly is located in a subsequent paragraph of that provision is symptomatic, which makes one presume that it is not mandatory or that the control is merely one of legality. If it were otherwise, the current third paragraph would have been inserted after the first, so that it would be covered by what is provided in the second. Moreover, it seems logical that this is so. It makes no sense to have the Members of Parliament assess whether the legal requirements for the granting of concessions were met. That is an administrative function that the corresponding municipality or institute is called upon to perform, and for which it would not be justified to elevate a concession file to the Legislative Assembly. In any case, any doubt about how to interpret said Canon 42 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, specifically regarding the approval that Parliament must grant when the concession involves an island or islet, was resolved in the cited judgment 454 of 14 hours 55 minutes on January 25, 2006, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, where, as relevant, it states: '* **XI.- ON THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF ISLANDS AND ISLETS.** … For this reason, it is considered that, besides being necessary, the requirement for legislative approval in this type of contract (concession over islands and islets) is advisable, **as it acts as a form of political control over an "'asset of the Nation'" of fundamental importance, being located in the territorial sea, over which the State exercises its sovereignty, completely and exclusively (Article 6 of the Constitution)** . Likewise, a broad debate in the Legislative Plenary is useful and necessary, so that the deputies may examine the object, purpose, opportunity, and legality of the concession. Note that the exploitation and enjoyment of this "**asset of the Nation**" has strong economic, social, as well as environmental and ecological, and even political repercussions; for which reason all represented factions must be allowed to participate … **XII.- CONTINUED. (1).-** Likewise, it is important to note that doctrine has understood approval to represent a declaration based on assessments of the merit, opportunity, usefulness, and legality of the act submitted for consideration; from which it is verified that the approving entity does not cooperate in the formation of the act submitted for its approval, it only declares that the act submitted for its examination is useful and opportune, in order to thus consider fulfilled the condition upon which the law makes the effectiveness of the act depend. **That is, legislative action in this matter acts as a condition for the legal effectiveness of this type of contract, insofar as the contract is neither complete nor produces natural effects until this approval occurs; constituting a control, not only of legality, but also of a political nature.** So in this case, the Legislative Assembly is not legitimized to integrate its will into the contract it approves, because this was expressed by the entity that processed the concession and before whom it was managed, i.e., the respective municipality that formulates the consultation before the Assembly. **Thus, the legislative body may approve or disapprove it in its entirety – not partially – depending on the opportunity, legality, and the very merit of the contract**, but without modifying or transforming it, because the power to sign the concession corresponds exclusively to the municipalities. So that any eventual intervention by the Assembly in the content of concessions of islands or islets by the legislators would make the act unconstitutional, to the detriment of the municipal autonomy constitutionally recognized in Article 170.' (Only the underlining is not from the original). In light of the preceding precedent, it is clear that the approval granted by the Legislative Assembly regarding concessions granted by municipalities over maritime islands or islets is not only one of legality, but, considering its intrinsic nature (fundamentally political), also encompasses aspects of opportunity and convenience, which implies that it is not a regulated act. On the contrary, there is a manifestation of first-degree governmental discretion (...)*" *(RES: 000771-F-S1-2008, at sixteen o'clock on November eighteenth, two thousand eight)*.- **VI).-** Now, the first grievance in the appeal challenges the fact that the agreement of the District Municipal Council indicated that the denial of the permit was based, among other reasons, on the applicant's failure to submit the concession application (solicitud de concesión) with the required requisites.- This reason is certainly not valid, as the evaluation of the requirements for obtaining a concession (concesión) is a matter to be addressed within the specific proceeding formulated in that regard by the interested party, and not within the request for a land-use permit (permiso de uso del suelo), which is what is under consideration here. The District Municipal Council improperly confuses and mixes, on this specific issue, two procedures that, although linked to each other, always maintain their independence and must be resolved as such.- This constitutes an irregularity in the act; however, as will be seen, it is not of a substantial nature, since there are indeed valid, reasonable grounds adjusted to municipal competencies for deciding as it did.- **VII).-** Another reason given for the denial of the permit is the current nonexistence of a duly approved regulatory plan (plan regulador) (the validity of a plan prepared by a private company is not analyzed here, as this is not the object of the appeal).- In this regard, it should be noted that, indeed, the approval of said plan is not a *sine qua non* requirement for the granting of that type of permit – which by their very nature have precarious effects – however, if what is intended is to use a part of the restricted zone (zona restringida) of the island for tourist purposes, which as stated enjoys special legislative protection, it must at least be known with certainty which areas have such a vocation within the island territory, and in accordance with a basic principle of sustainable development planning (Environment Organic Law), in protection of the zone, the type of use that will be or could be given to those areas must be reliably known, according to the particular conditions of the land, because the granting of a land-use permit cannot be separated from the technical criteria that exist regarding the "vocation" of the land.- According to the information in the file, on Isla Tortuga there are lands of both tourist and agricultural vocation, as stated by a Direct Taxation appraisal prepared several years ago; however, both areas are not clearly identified, neither by the Municipality nor by the interested party, at least this does not appear in the documents comprising the administrative file, and in fact, the only thing that exists at the moment is the demarcation (amojonamiento) of the public zone (zona pública) by the National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional).- Therefore, if as of today it is not even known initially which areas are exploitable for tourism, the Municipality is correct in using, based on that circumstance, a criterion of prudence and reasonable exercise of its competencies by denying the land-use permit, as well as the erection of any type of construction at the site.- Furthermore, the Municipality has verified the existence of several constructions in the restricted zone of the island, and as this Office has been able to observe, there is no record that they were erected with prior municipal authorization.- Although the appealing company disputes the value of an inspection carried out at the site, regarding matters related to non-compliance with requirements of the notarial record drawn up and the form of notification, the fact of the matter is that the existence of the constructions is not disputed, as several photographs of them were even provided (folios 346 to 348), and it has also not been possible to prove, either at the municipal level or in this improper hierarchical appeal, that the company had a permit from the Municipality of Puntarenas for all of them. That circumstance – nonexistence of permits – could even lead to the demolition of what was built, without prejudice to other types of liabilities, and under such conditions, it is reasonable and therefore in accordance with the law that the District Municipal Council opted to first clarify that situation and deny the land-use permit, in order not to run the risk of authorizing the use of a public domain asset to someone who may have incurred in violations of the legal framework in the use of that specific zone.- **VIII).-** Likewise, the denial was based on the fact that, as of today, the Ministry of Environment and Energy has not issued the certification of the protected area in that zone.- This circumstance is decisive, given that if there are forested areas on the island – as indeed there are – and it is still pending to determine whether or not there should be protected areas and their delimitation, then the actions of the municipal authorities are consistent with the correct application of the precautionary principle, which governs in environmental matters, given the need to protect, prior to the granting of any authorization on the island, the forest patrimony of the State, in which case, jurisdiction over these matters would pass to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAET).- Note in this sense that the company itself stated in its appeal that the final proposal for the regulatory plan is subject to the state definition regarding the new requirements imposed by the Ministry of Environment, for which reason this Office considers that the District Municipal Council of Paquera did nothing but guarantee the validity of Article 50 of the Constitution, and to that extent, there is no illegality whatsoever in what was decided.- **IX).-** Finally, it is timely to address the appellant's complaint to the effect that a motion for reconsideration and appeal against resolution ZMT-0101-10-07 of the Municipal Intendant of Paquera has not been resolved.- From the information in the file, it is noted that the District Municipal Council of Paquera, by notification of September thirteenth, two thousand seven, informed Cocoteros del Mar S.A.

the existence of unauthorized constructions in the public zone of the island, according to a notarial deed of the inspection carried out on site, the existence of fences and "private property" signs, granting it 15 days to present its defense evidence (folios 349 to 351); the company, in a brief dated the twenty-sixth of the same month and year, referred to the notarial deed that served as the basis for the previous notification, alleging that it was contrary to the Notary Code (Código Notarial), and requested the annulment of the notification made for being illegal (folios 352 to 356); this action was denied by the Intendente of Paquera, in official communication ZMT-0101-10-07 of October first of that same year (folios 365 to 368).- Now then, on the following November 14, Cocoteros del Mar S.A., referred to official communication ZMT-0101-10-07, rebutting it and reporting on the progress in the preparation of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) (folios 379 to 382).- This last brief is the only one that appears in the case file, in relation to the official communication invoked in the appeal, and from its text it cannot be inferred that it is a motion for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio), as this was not indicated in that memorial. The interested party merely indicated that </span><span style="font-style:italic">"in a timely manner I respond to points 2 and 3 of Official Communication ZMT-0101-10-07"</span><span>, giving a series of explanations, from which it cannot be deduced in any way that ordinary appeals are being filed against what was decided by the Intendente.- To that extent, the omission alleged did not occur, so this claim must be rejected.- </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">X).- </span><span>By virtue of all the foregoing, the appropriate course is to confirm the challenged agreement, given that it is substantially in conformity with the administrative legal system.- Likewise, the administrative process must be deemed exhausted (agotada la vía administrativa), as the decision herein lacks any further appeal.- </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span>&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">POR TANTO:</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> The appealed agreement is confirmed and the administrative process is deemed exhausted.- </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">Rose Mary Chambers Rivas </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">Hubert Fernández Argüello </span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-weight:bold">I. Rocío Rojas Morales</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Exp: 08-000297-1027-CA</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Municipal</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Cocoteros del Mar S.A. c/ Municipalidad de Paquera</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Nombre5139</span></p></div></body></html> ... If the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Legislative Assembly will be necessary. ” (The underlining and bold highlighting are not from the original). Regarding the concession of maritime islands or islets, the foregoing is reaffirmed by canon 43 of the Regulation of that Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P of December 16, 1977 and its amendments, by providing: “ In the case of concession requests over part or all of maritime islands or islets, the original of the concession contract and a copy of the case file, with all the background of the case, must be sent to the Legislative Assembly for its approval. ” For the sub júdice, it is relevant to determine if the approval given by the Parliament is only of legality, in which case it would be a regulated act, and, therefore, approval could only be denied for that reason; or if, on the contrary, it also covers aspects of opportunity and convenience. It is necessary to indicate, prior to the respective analysis, that the requirement of legislative approval, unlike what is indicated by the cassation appellant, finds its constitutional basis in canon 140, subsection 19 of the Political Charter. That norm provides: “ The following are duties and attributions that correspond jointly to the President and the respective Government Minister: … 19) To sign the administrative contracts not included in subsection 14) of article 121 of this Constitution, subject to submitting them to the approval of the Legislative Assembly when they stipulate exemption of taxes or fees, or have as their object the exploitation of public services, resources or natural wealth of the State. / The legislative approval of these contracts will not give them the character of laws nor exempt them from their administrative legal regime. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to loans or other similar agreements, referred to in subsection 15) of article 121, which shall be governed by their special norms. ” (The underlining is not from the original). That provision is clear when indicating that, in the case of contracts whose object refers, among others, to the resources or natural wealth of the State, such as maritime islands or islets, the approval of the Legislative Assembly is necessarily required, without this implying a variation in the applicable administrative legal regime. Despite the fact that said constitutional provision refers to contracts signed by the Executive Power, in the case of agreements signed by other bodies or entities, for example the municipalities, if their object is one of those indicated therein, for instance, the “resources or natural wealth of the State”, as happens in the sub lite case, in principle, it is not only convenient, but necessary to have legislative approval, by virtue of the public interest, or even more, the national interest involved as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in votes numbers 2006-454 at 14:45 on January 25, 2006 and 2007-2063 at 14:40 on February 14, 2007. On the other hand, from the literal tenor of canon 42 of Law 6043, it is clearly deduced that the provision in the second paragraph, i.e., the impossibility of denying approval except for reasons of legality, only refers to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) and the Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO), today the Agrarian Development Institute (IDA). That paragraph states: “ These institutes may not deny approval, unless it violates the law, which they must expressly indicate, in a reasoned manner. ” (The underlining is supplied). Which institutes? Well, those indicated in the first paragraph: ICT and ITCO, today IDA. Likewise, the fact that what is indicated regarding the approval of the Legislative Assembly is located in a later paragraph of that provision is symptomatic, which makes it presumed that it does not become mandatory and neither that the control is of mere legality. If it were not this way, the current third paragraph would have been inserted after the first, so that it would be covered by the provision in the second. Moreover, it seems logical that it is so. It makes no sense to put the Representatives to assess whether the legal requirements for the granting of concessions were met. That is an administrative function that the corresponding municipality or institute is called upon to do, and for which it would not be justified to elevate a concession file to the Legislative Assembly. In any case, any doubt about the way of interpreting said canon 42 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, specifically, regarding the approval that the Parliament must grant when the concession has as its object an island or islet, was settled in the indicated judgment 454 of 14:55 on January 25, 2006 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, where, in what is of interest, it is indicated: “ XI.- OF THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF ISLANDS AND ISLETS. … For this reason, it is considered that besides being necessary, the requirement of legislative approval in this type of contracts (concession over islands and islets) is convenient, insofar as it acts as a mode of political control regarding a 'good of the Nation' of fundamental importance, being located in the territorial sea, over which the State exercises its sovereignty, in a complete and exclusive manner (constitutional article 6). Likewise, a broad debate in the Legislative Plenary is useful and necessary, so that the deputies examine the object, purpose, opportunity and legality of the concession. Note that the exploitation and enjoyment of this 'good of the Nation' has strong repercussions at the economic, social level, in addition to the environmental and ecological ones, and even political ones; which is why participation must be given to all the represented fractions … XII.- CONTINUATION. (1).- Likewise, it is important to point out that the doctrine has understood that approval represents a declaration based on assessments on the merit, opportunity, utility and legality of the act submitted to its knowledge; from where it is verified that the subject who approves does not cooperate in the formation of the act submitted to its approval, it only declares that the act submitted to its examination is useful and opportune, to thus consider the condition on which the law makes the efficacy of the act depend as fulfilled. That is to say, that the legislative action in this matter acts as a conditioning factor of the legal efficacy of this type of contracts, insofar as the contract is not complete nor produces its natural effects until this approval supervenes; constituting a control, not only of legality, but also of a political order. So that, in this case, the Legislative Assembly is not legitimized to integrate its will to the contract it approves, since this was expressed by the subject who processed and before whom the concession was managed, i.e., the respective municipality that formulates the inquiry before the Assembly. Thus, the legislative body can approve or disapprove it in its entirety -not partially-, depending on the opportunity, legality and goodness itself of the contract, but without modifying or transforming it, because the power of subscription of the concession corresponds exclusively to the municipalities. So that an eventual intervention of the Assembly regarding the content of the concessions of islands or islets by the legislators would make the act unconstitutional, to the detriment of the municipal autonomy, constitutionally recognized in article 170. ” (Only the underlining is not from the original). In light of the above precedent, it is clear that the approval given by the Legislative Assembly concerning concessions granted by the municipalities regarding maritime islands or islets, is not only of legality, but, attending to its intrinsic nature (fundamentally political) also covers aspects of opportunity and convenience, which implies that it is not a regulated act. On the contrary, there is a manifestation of first-degree governmental discretion (...) " (RES: 000771-F-S1-2008, of sixteen hours on November eighteenth, two thousand eight).- VI).- Now then, the first grievance of the appeal questions that the agreement of the District Municipal Council indicated that the denial of the permit was due, among other reasons, to the fact that the interested party did not provide the concession application, with the required requisites.- That reason is certainly not valid, since the assessment of the requisites to obtain a concession is a matter that must be ventilated within the specific procedure formulated in that sense by the interested party and not within the petition for a land-use permit (permiso de uso de suelo), which is what is heard here. The District Municipal Council confuses and mixes, improperly in this specific topic, two procedures, which although they are linked to each other, always maintain their independence, and thus must be resolved.- It is an irregularity in the act, however, and as will be seen, it is not of a substantial nature, since there are valid, reasonable reasons, adjusted to the municipal competences to decide in the way it was done.- VII).- Another of the reasons adduced for the denial of the permit is the non-existence, to date, of a duly approved regulatory plan (the validity of a plan prepared by a private company is not analyzed here, as it is not the object of the appeal).- In this regard, it should be noted that certainly, the approval of said plan is not a sine qua non requisite for the granting of that type of permits -which by their own nature have precarious effects-, however, if what is intended is to use a part of the restricted zone (zona restringida) of the island for tourism purposes, which as said has special legislative protection, at least it must be known with certainty, which are the areas that have such vocation within the insular territory, and in accordance with a basic principle of planning and sustainable development (Organic Environmental Law), in protection of the zone, the type of use that will be or could be given to those areas must be feasibly known, according to the particular conditions of the land, because the granting of a use permit cannot be separated from the technical criteria that exist on the "vocation" of the soil.- According to the information that appears in the file, on Isla Tortuga there are lands of both tourism and agricultural vocation, as indicated by an appraisal from Direct Taxation made several years ago, however, both areas are not clearly identified, neither by the Municipality, nor by the interested party, at least it does not appear so in the documentation that makes up the administrative file, and in fact, the only thing that exists at the moment is the demarcation (amojonamiento) of the public zone (zona pública) by the National Geographic Institute.- Therefore, if to date it is not even known initially, which are the areas exploitable for tourism, the Municipality is right in using, based on that circumstance, a criterion of prudence and reasonable exercise of its competences, denying the use permit, as well as the erection of any type of building on the site.- Furthermore, the Municipality has verified the existence of several constructions in the restricted zone of the island, and as this Office has been able to observe, there is no proof that they have been erected with prior municipal authorization.- Although the appealing company disputes the value of an inspection carried out on the site, for issues related to non-compliance with the requisites of the notarial act drawn up and the form of notification, the fact is that the existence of the constructions is not disputed, since several photographs of them were even provided (folios 346 to 348), and it has not been possible to prove, neither in the municipal venue nor in this venue of improper hierarchy, that the company had a permit from the Municipality of Puntarenas for all of them. That circumstance -non-existence of permits-, could even give rise to the demolition of what has been built, without prejudice to other types of responsibilities, and under such conditions, it is reasonable and therefore in accordance with the law, that the District Municipal Council has chosen to first clarify that situation and deny the use permit, in order not to run the risk of authorizing the use of a public domain asset, to someone who could have incurred in violations of the legal system, in the use of that specific zone.- VIII).- Likewise, the denial was based on the fact that as of today, the Ministry of Environment and Energy has not issued the certification of the protected area (área protegida) in that zone.- This circumstance is determinant, given that if there are forested areas on the island -as they indeed exist-, and it is still pending to concretize whether there should be protected areas or not, and their delimitation, then the actions by the municipal authorities are consistent with the correct application of the precautionary principle, which governs in environmental matters, given the need to protect, prior to the granting of any authorization on the island, the forest heritage of the State, in which case, the competence of the matter, regarding them, would pass to the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET).- Note in this sense, that the company itself stated, in its appeal, that the final proposal of the regulatory plan is subject to the state definition regarding the new requirements demanded by the Ministry of Environment, which is why this Office considers that the District Municipal Council of Paquera did nothing other than guarantee the validity of constitutional article 50, and to that extent, no illegality is found in what was decided.- " 311, of September 3, 2001, Article 3, subsection h), authorized Cocoteros del Mar S.A., to hire a consulting firm to prepare the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) for the restricted area of Tolinga Island (Tortuga) "so that it may eventually enable the granting of a concession right over the area in favor of that same entity" (folios 147 to 149); **23)** That the company hired the firm Eco Plan for the preparation of the regulatory plan (Plan Regulador) (folio 302); **24)** That the National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional, IGN) conducted a new demarcation of the coastal sector of Tolinga Island, between the following approximate Lambert coordinates from map MBCR 1/50000 Hoja Tambor Placa16562: 195267 N- 438236-E, Placa16563, 195171 N -439139 E NIE62- 438293 E (notice 05-02, Gaceta Nº 86 of May 5, 2005, folio 311); **25)** That in official letter ZMT-86-01-05 of January 19, 2006, the coordinator of the Maritime Land Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre) of Puntarenas stated the following: *"By this means we inform you of the result of your application to obtain a land use (uso de suelo) located at Dirección11243. In this regard, we advise that with instructions and advice from the Legal Department of this Municipality regarding the analysis of your file conducted by this department, we note that your proceeding has irregularities from the outset because it originates from an assignment of rights or transfer, and that these are illegal practices that were being carried out and granted by the Municipality, which did not conform to the provisions of Law 6043, on the Maritime Land Zone, especially its Article 45. Therefore, it is not possible to continue with the respective proceeding for you to obtain a land use (uso de suelo), and we will proceed with the* ***closing of liabilities (archivo de pasivos)*** *of your file. If you are willing to restart the proceeding under a new file number, you must submit the following documentation to this office (...) You are granted 15 days from receipt of this notification to present whatever you deem appropriate. We must point out that should you need any document(s) from the file to be closed that may be useful for the new file, we are fully willing to transfer them to you"* (folio 313); **26)** That against that official letter 86-01-05, the company filed a motion for reconsideration and appeal (folios 316 to 320); **27)** That in official letter ZMT-101-01-06 of January 30, 2006, the reconsideration was rejected and the appeal was admitted (folio 324); **28)** That on March 20, 2007, Cocoteros del Mar S.A. requested the District Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal de Distrito) of Paquera de Puntarenas, the granting of a use permit (permiso de uso) on Tortuga Island, between National Geographic Institute (IGN) boundary markers 1 to 4, covering an area of 4,334 meters, 23 square decimeters, for the purpose of installing some ranchos on the site. The request indicated that: *"The aforementioned installations will be used by tourists traveling on excursions or arriving at the site by their own means, whose attention will be the responsibility of the permit holder (permisionario). The term of validity of the use permit (permiso de uso) would be subject to the effective possibility of granting concessions in the coastal zone of interest, and it would be necessary to estimate a fee as a pecuniary consideration"* (folios 329 to 342); **29)** That the District Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal de Distrito) of Paquera, through notification served on September 13, 2007, informed Cocoteros del Mar S.A. of the existence of unauthorized constructions in the public zone (zona pública) of the island, according to a notarial act of the inspection carried out on site, the existence of fences and "private property" signs. It granted 15 days to present exculpatory evidence (folios 349 to 351); **30)** That the company, in a brief dated the 26th of the same month and year, addressed the notarial act that served as the basis for the previous notification, alleging it was contrary to the Notarial Code, and requested the annulment of the notification served as illegal (folios 352 to 356); **31)** That the Intendente of Paquera, in official letter ZMT-0101-10-07 of October 1st of that same year, rejected the alleged nullity (folios 365 to 368); **32)** That on the following November 14th, Cocoteros del Mar S.A. addressed official letter ZMT-0101-10-07, refuting it, and in turn reporting on the progress in the preparation of the regulatory plan (Plan Regulador) (folios 379 to 382); **33)** That in official letter ZMT-0129-01-08 of January 29, 2008, the municipal intendente communicated to Cocoteros del Mar S.A. that he would proceed to conduct a cleanup of the entire sector of the public zone (zona pública) of the island *"mainly the structures and beach implements that are occupying that entire sector,"* with which the company declared its agreement (folios 394, 395 to 397); **34)** That the District Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal de Distrito), in ordinary session Nº384 of May 1, 2008, rejected the application for land use (uso de suelo) and constructions (folios 405 to 408); **35)** Against the foregoing, the company filed a motion for reconsideration and appeal (folios 411 to 417); **36)** That the Council, in extraordinary session Nº392 of June 10, rejected the reconsideration and admitted the appeal (folio 423).- **II).-** It was not proven: **1)** That the constructions located on Tolinga or Tortuga Island, visible in the photographs on folios 346 to 348, had a municipal construction permit. No reliable evidence was sought in this regard.- **III).-** In its appeal, the legal representative of the company states that the challenged agreement contains a series of serious errors, as well as procedural and substantive defects that render it absolutely invalid.- Firstly, it complains that a motion for reconsideration and appeal against resolution ZMT-0101-10-07 of the Municipal Intendente has not been resolved, which in its judgment demonstrates disorder and disinterest in the handling of the case.- That contrary to what the Council asserts, it was indeed granted a permit to build in the restricted area (zona restringida) of the lot it possesses, as evidenced by document 2847; that it did not request a permit to build a cabin, but to set up some ranchos with specific characteristics, on the understanding that these are removable, that is, without permanent attachment to the soil. This, it affirms, for the purpose of proposing a viable solution for its represented entity, aimed at improving the conditions of the tourist visitation area and thereby organizing the activities carried out there. That the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) is currently in the process of being prepared by a consulting firm hired for that purpose by its represented entity, and that as it indicated to the District Municipal Council, the final proposal is subject to the state's definition regarding the new requirements demanded by the Ministry of Environment. That furthermore, the company requested and was received in a hearing to explain the Plan proposal, so the alleged lack of awareness by the municipality in this regard is untrue. That within the concession application file managed by the company for the restricted area (zona restringida) of Tortuga Island, construction permit No. 2847 approved in session 421 of April 24, 1989, is recorded, and that furthermore, the existence of lease contracts and their respective extensions, granted in due course by ITCO, works in its favor, and that it possesses the legal status of occupant of the restricted area (zona restringida) of Tortuga Island, given that its management over said coastal sector dates back to before Law 6043 came into force in 1977. That consequently, there is extensive documentation attesting to the existing constructions on the site and their age, which have always been done with municipal permits.- That it is indeed possible to grant a use permit (permiso de uso) on the site —given the lack of a regulatory plan— as well as to authorize temporary constructions, but that the Municipality, by denying both possibilities, confuses the concept of a permit with that of a concession, which it considers completely inconsistent and mistaken. That this denial lacks any basis and is based on merely subjective assessments that are also imprecise, contradictory, and false, and it so requests be declared.- **IV).-** The Court limits its analysis to the challenged agreement, adopted by the District Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal de Distrito) of Paquera in ordinary session Nº384 of May 1, 2008, through which it denied an application filed by the company Cocoteros del Mar S.A. to be granted a use permit (permiso de uso) on Tortuga Island, between National Geographic Institute (IGN) boundary markers 1 to 4, in an area of 4,334 meters, 23 square decimeters, for the purpose of installing some ranchos on the site, to be used for attending to tourists traveling on excursions or arriving at the place by their own means, under the responsibility of the permit holder (permisionario).- As background, the Court notes that, as claimed, the company has occupied the island for a long time; in fact, it was the lessee thereof until the year nineteen ninety-five, under a contract signed in due course by the Municipality of Puntarenas, which has already expired due to fulfillment of the term.- However, as of today, neither a concession nor a use permit (permiso de uso) has been granted to Cocoteros del Mar S.A., although it requested both from the District Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal de Distrito) of Paquera.- The first proceeding is pending resolution, and the second —as stated— was denied in the act challenged here.- Next, the reasons given by the Council for said denial are analyzed to determine whether or not they justify that decision.- **V).-** As a first matter, it is essential to recall that the insular territories of our country are, in their entirety, public domain assets that form part of the maritime land zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and that, moreover, by express provision of Law 6043, they are subject to a special regime that transcends the common one regulating the other territories that comprise that zone.- The legislator was especially zealous on this issue, to the point of requiring legislative approval for any concessions that may eventually be granted on the national islands, a particular care that *mutatis mutandi* must also be applied to the study and analysis not only of that type of acts, but also of any others that may be issued by municipalities or other competent bodies in those territories, as is the case with use permits (permisos de uso).- This Court, in judgment Nº250-2008 of eleven o'clock on April 29, 2008, stated in this regard:

> *"Islands require a concession from the State, as they are a public domain asset belonging to the Nation —Article 6 of the Political Constitution, 3.1 and 75 of the Water Law N° 276 of August 26, 1942, Articles 1. 10, 11 of the Law on the Maritime Land Zone—. Islands and islets form part of the maritime land zone and are subject to concession, except for islands subject to a special regime, as is the case of Isla del Coco, San Lucas, Caño, Cabo Blanco, Negritos, and Pájaros. Pursuant to the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 42 of Law N° 6043, "...If the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof,* ***legislative approval*** *shall be necessary" (emphasis not in original). In the same vein, Article 37 ibidem provides that tourism development projects on islands and islets declared as tourist areas require prior legislative authorization. By virtue of the fact that it is an area that forms part of the maritime land zone and a Nation's asset, the ordinary legislator, in full harmony with subsection 14) of Article 121 of the Political Charter, provided in that cited provision of the Law on the Maritime Land Zone that this type of concession requires legislative approval. It must be clear that Municipalities are mere administrators of said zone and that their ownership belongs to the "Nation", according to the classification of assets made by the Constitutional Chamber (See Judgment N° 2006-00454); which implies a very special form of ownership —it belongs to all members of the Nation—, a concept that surpasses that of belonging to a specific Public Administration and even the concept of the State understood as a global legal entity representing that community. The legislative approval required by the Law on the Maritime Land Zone for this type of concession is an act of control which, due to the nature of the body performing it, includes political and legality aspects and not only the latter —as the plaintiff understands— since the legislative intervention modifies the originally essentially administrative processing regime provided for in the Law on the Maritime Land Zone. Consequently, it is with the legislative approval, and not before, that the granted concessions may achieve full perfection. The administrative contract signed in this case "is neither complete nor produces natural effects" until the legislative approval occurs (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber 06-454)"*.

The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice recently also addressed the issue, establishing some principles that reinforce this special character of islands and islets.- Said Chamber stated:

> ***"IV.-** *The first provision of the Law on the Maritime Land Zone, number 6043, establishes the public domain status (demanialidad) of the maritime land zone, by stating that it forms part of the national patrimony belonging to the State and, therefore, is inalienable and imprescriptible. According to canon 9 ejusdem, said zone is comprised of the strip of two hundred meters wide along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines of the Republic, whatever their nature, measured horizontally from the ordinary high tide line and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide. It adds that, for all legal purposes, it also includes maritime islands, islets, and crags, as well as any land or natural formation protruding above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Cocos Island is excepted, being under the direct domain and possession of the State, and those other islands whose domain or administration is determined in that law or in special laws. This zone consists of two sections —Article 10 ibidem—: 1) public zone (zona pública), which is the strip 50 meters wide from the ordinary high tide line and the areas left uncovered during low tide; and 2) restricted zone (zona restringida), that is, the strip of the remaining 150 meters, or the remaining lands in the case of islands. Islets, crags, and other small areas and natural formations protruding from the sea correspond to the public zone (zona pública). In turn, canons 39 and 40 of said legislation provide that municipalities are the competent bodies to grant concessions in the restricted zone (zona restringida) of the maritime land zone located in their territory. Article 42 requires, for the administrative act of concession to be effective, the approval of several decentralized entities as well as of Parliament, depending on the purpose and nature of the asset. That article of Law 6043 provides: "Concessions in tourist areas require the approval of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute. In other areas of the maritime land zone, the approval shall correspond to the Institute of Lands and Colonization./ These institutes may not deny approval, except where it violates the law, which they must expressly indicate in a reasoned manner./* ***If the concession refers to a maritime island or islet, or part thereof, the approval of the Legislative Assembly shall be necessary.** *" (The underlining and bold highlighting are not from the original). Regarding the concession of maritime islands or islets, this is reaffirmed by canon 43 of the Regulation of that Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P of December 16, 1977 and its amendments, by providing: "In the case of applications for concession over part or all of maritime islands or islets,* ***the original of the concession contract*** *and a copy of the file, with all the background of the case, must be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly for its approval." For the sub judice, it is of interest to determine whether the approval granted by Parliament is only one of legality, in which case it would be a regulated act, and, therefore, approval could only be denied for that reason; or whether, on the contrary, it also covers aspects of opportunity and convenience. It is necessary to indicate, prior to the respective analysis, that the requirement for legislative approval, unlike what the cassation appellant indicated, finds its foothold or constitutional basis in canon 140 subsection 19 of the Political Charter. That provision states: "The following are duties and powers jointly attributable to the President and the respective Minister of Government: ... 19)* ***To sign administrative contracts not included in subsection 14) of Article 121 of this Constitution, subject to submitting them to the approval of the Legislative Assembly*** *when they stipulate tax or duty exemptions,* ***or have as their object*** *the exploitation of public services, natural* ***resources, or riches of the State.** */ ***Legislative approval of these contracts shall not give them the character of laws nor exempt them from their administrative legal regime.** *The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to loans or other similar agreements referred to in subsection 15) of Article 121, which shall be governed by their special rules." (The underlining is not from the original). That provision is clear in stating that, for contracts whose object refers, among others, to natural resources or riches of the State, such as maritime islands or islets, the approval of the Legislative Assembly is necessarily required, without this implying a change in the applicable administrative legal regime. Notwithstanding that said constitutional provision refers to contracts signed by the Executive Branch, in the case of agreements signed by other bodies or entities, for example municipalities, if their object is one of those indicated therein, for instance, the "natural resources or riches of the State", as occurs in the sub lite, in principle, legislative approval is not only convenient but necessary, by virtue of the public interest, or rather, the national interest involved, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in votes numbers 2006-454 of 14 hours 45 minutes on January 25, 2006, and 2007-2063 of 14 hours 40 minutes on February 14, 2007. On the other hand, from the literal wording of canon 42 of Law 6043, it is clearly deduced that the provision in the second paragraph, i.e., the impossibility of denying approval except for reasons of legality, only refers to the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) and the Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO), today the Institute of Agrarian Development (IDA). That paragraph states: "* ***These institutes may not deny approval,*** *except where it violates the law, which they must expressly indicate in a reasoned manner." (The underlining is supplied). Which institutes? Well, those mentioned in the first paragraph: ICT and ITCO, today IDA. Likewise, the fact that what is stated regarding the approval of the Legislative Assembly is located in a subsequent paragraph of that provision is symptomatic, which leads to the presumption that it is not mandatory and nor that the control is merely one of legality. If it were otherwise, the current third paragraph would have been inserted after the first, so that the second paragraph's provision would cover it. Moreover, it seems logical that this is so. There is no point in having the members of Parliament assess whether the legal requirements for granting concessions were met. That is an administrative function that the municipality or corresponding institute is called upon to perform, and for which it would not be justified to elevate a concession file to the Legislative Assembly. In any case, any doubt about how to interpret said canon 42 of the Law on the Maritime Land Zone, specifically regarding the approval that Parliament must grant when the concession's object is an island or islet, was settled in the aforementioned judgment 454 of 14 hours 55 minutes on January 25, 2006, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, where, regarding the matter of interest, it is stated: "* ***XI.- ON THE USE AND EXPLOITATION OF ISLANDS AND ISLETS.** *… Therefore, it is deemed that, in addition to being necessary, the requirement of legislative approval in this type of contract (concession over islands and islets) is convenient,* ***as it acts as a form of political control over a "Nation's asset" of fundamental importance, being located in the territorial sea, over which the State exercises its sovereignty completely and exclusively (Article 6 of the Constitution)*** *. Likewise, a broad debate in the Legislative Plenary is useful and necessary, so that the deputies examine the object, purpose, timeliness, and legality of the concession. Note that the exploitation and use of this "* ***Nation's asset*** *" has strong economic and social repercussions, in addition to environmental and ecological ones, and even political ones; which is why participation must be given to all represented factions ...* ***XII.- CONTINUATION. (1).-** *Furthermore, it is important to note that the doctrine has understood that approval represents a declaration based on assessments of the merit, timeliness, usefulness, and legality of the act submitted for its consideration; from which it is verified that the subject granting approval does not cooperate in the formation of the act submitted for its approval, but merely declares that the act submitted for its examination is useful and timely, in order to thus consider fulfilled the condition upon which the law makes the effectiveness of the act dependent. That is,* ***the legislative action in this matter acts as a condition of legal effectiveness for this type of contract, insofar as the contract is neither complete nor produces natural effects until this approval occurs; constituting a control, not only of legality, but also of a political nature.** * Thus, in this case, the Legislative Assembly is not empowered to integrate its will into the contract it approves, because that will was expressed by the entity that processed and before whom the concession was sought, that is, the respective municipality that formulates the consultation before the Assembly. Thus, the legislative body may approve or reject it in its entirety—not partially—depending on the appropriateness, legality, and merits of the contract itself, but without modifying or transforming it, because the power to execute the concession belongs exclusively to the municipalities. Therefore, any intervention by the Assembly regarding the content of concessions for islands or islets by legislators would render the act unconstitutional, to the detriment of municipal autonomy, constitutionally recognized in Article 170.” (Only the underlined portion is not from the original). In light of the foregoing precedent, it is clear that the approval granted by the Legislative Assembly concerning concessions granted by municipalities regarding maritime islands or islets is not only a matter of legality, but also, taking into account its intrinsic nature (fundamentally political), encompasses aspects of appropriateness and convenience, which implies that this is not a strictly regulated act. On the contrary, there is an exercise of first-degree governmental discretion (...)" (RES: 000771-F-S1-2008, at sixteen hours on the eighteenth of November, two thousand eight).- VI).- Now then, the first grievance in the appeal challenges that the agreement of the District Municipal Council indicated that the denial of the permit occurred, among other reasons, because the interested party did not submit the concession request with the required documentation.- That reason is indeed not valid, because the assessment of the requirements for obtaining a concession is a matter that must be addressed within the specific procedure filed for that purpose by the interested party and not within the petition for a land-use permit (permiso de uso de suelo), which is the matter at hand here. The District Municipal Council confusingly and improperly mixes, on this specific point, two procedures, which, although linked to each other, always maintain their independence, and must be resolved as such.- This constitutes an irregularity in the act; however, and as will be seen, it is not of a substantive nature, since there are valid, reasonable grounds, consistent with municipal powers, to decide as it did.- VII).- Another reason given for the denial of the permit is the non-existence, to date, of a duly approved regulatory plan (plan regulador) (this office does not enter here into the analysis of the validity of a plan prepared by a private company, as this is not the subject of the appeal).- In this regard, it should be noted that, indeed, the approval of said plan is not a sine qua non requirement for the granting of that type of permit—which by their very nature have precarious effects—; however, if the intended purpose is to use a part of the restricted zone of the island for tourism, which, as stated, has special legislative protection, at the very least it must be known with certainty which areas have such a vocation within the island territory. In accordance with a basic principle of planning and sustainable development (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), for the protection of the zone, the type of use that will be given or may be given to those areas must be reliably known, according to the particular conditions of the land, since the granting of a use permit cannot be separated from the technical criteria that exist regarding the "vocation" of the land.- According to the information in the case file, on Isla Tortuga there are lands with both tourism and agricultural/livestock vocations, as indicated by an appraisal from Tributación Directa prepared several years ago; however, both areas are not clearly identified, either by the Municipality or by the interested party; at least, this is not evident in the documentation comprising the administrative file, and in fact, the only thing that currently exists is the demarcation of the public zone by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional.- Therefore, if to date it is not known, even in a preliminary manner, which areas are exploitable for tourism, the Municipality is correct in using, based on that circumstance, a criterion of prudence and reasonable exercise of its powers in denying the use permit, as well as the construction of any type of building on the site.- Furthermore, the Municipality has verified the existence of several constructions in the restricted zone of the island, and as this Office has been able to observe, there is no record that they were built with prior municipal authorization.- Although the appellant company disputes the value of an inspection carried out on the site, regarding matters related to non-compliance with requirements of the notarial certificate issued and the method of notification, the fact is that the existence of the constructions is not disputed, since several photographs of them were even provided (folios 346 to 348), and it has also not been proven, either in the municipal venue or in this venue of improper hierarchy, that the company had a permit from the Municipality of Puntarenas for all of them. That circumstance—the non-existence of permits—could even give rise to the demolition of what was built, without prejudice to other types of liability, and under such conditions, it is reasonable and therefore lawful for the District Municipal Council to have chosen to first clarify that situation and deny the use permit, so as not to run the risk of authorizing the use of a public domain asset by someone who may have incurred violations of the legal system in the use of that specific zone.- VIII).- Likewise, the denial was based on the fact that, as of today, the Ministry of Environment and Energy has not issued the certification of the protected area in that zone.- That circumstance is decisive, given that if there are forested areas on the island—as indeed exist—and the determination of whether there should be protected areas and their delimitation is still pending, the actions taken by the municipal authorities are consistent with the correct application of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), which governs environmental matters, given the need to protect, prior to the granting of any authorization on the island, the forest heritage of the State, in which case, jurisdiction over the matter, regarding those areas, would pass to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAET).- It is noteworthy in this regard that the company itself stated, in its appeal, that the final proposal for the regulatory plan (plan regulador) is subject to the state's definition regarding the new requirements demanded by the Ministry of the Environment, for which reason this Office considers that the District Municipal Council of Paquera did nothing but guarantee the effectiveness of constitutional Article 50, and to that extent, no illegality is found in its decision.- IX).- Finally, it is appropriate to address the appellant's complaint that a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) and appeal against resolution ZMT-0101-10-07 by the Municipal Intendente of Paquera has not been resolved.- From the information in the file, it is observed that the District Municipal Council of Paquera, by notification dated September thirteenth, two thousand seven, informed Cocoteros del Mar S.A. of the existence of unauthorized constructions in the public zone of the island, according to a notarial certificate of the inspection carried out on the site, the existence of fences and "private property" signs, granting it 15 days to present exculpatory evidence (folios 349 to 351); the company, in a written submission dated the twenty-sixth of the same month and year, referred to the notarial certificate that served as the basis for the previous notification, alleging that it was contrary to the Código Notarial, and requested the nullity of the notification as illegal (folios 352 to 356); a request that was denied by the Intendente of Paquera in official communication ZMT-0101-10-07 dated October first of that same year (folios 365 to 368).- Now then, on the following November 14th, Cocoteros del Mar S.A. referred to official communication ZMT-0101-10-07, rebutting it and reporting on the progress in the preparation of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) (folios 379 to 382).- This last written submission is the only one in the file relating to the official communication invoked in the appeal, and from its text, it cannot be inferred that it constitutes a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) with a subsidiary appeal, as this was not indicated in that brief. The interested party merely indicated that "in a timely manner I respond to points 2 and 3 of Official Communication ZMT-0101-10-07," providing a series of explanations from which it cannot be inferred in any way that ordinary appeals are being filed against the decision made by the Intendente.- To that extent, the alleged omission did not occur, so this argument must be rejected.- X).- By virtue of all the foregoing, the appropriate course is to uphold the challenged agreement, given that it is substantially in accordance with the administrative legal system.- Likewise, the administrative pathway must be deemed exhausted, since this decision is not subject to further appeal.-

POR TANTO:

The appealed agreement is upheld, and the administrative pathway is deemed exhausted.- Rose Mary Chambers Rivas Hubert Fernández Argüello I. Rocío Rojas Morales Municipal Cocoteros del Mar S.A. c/ Municipalidad de Paquera Nombre5139

N°174-2009 N°174-2009 TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN TERCERA. II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, a las quince horas treinta y cinco minutos del treinta de enero del dos mil nueve.- Apelación municipal, interpuesta por "Cocoteros del Mar, Sociedad Anónima", representada por su apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma Nombre101188 , quien es mayor, casado, comerciante, vecino de San José, contra el acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal de Distrito Paquera, en la sesión ordinaria Nº384 del primero de mayo del dos mil ocho.- Redacta el Juez Fernández Argüello, y:

CONSIDERANDO:

I).- Se tiene por probado lo siguiente: 1) Que mediante escritura pública número ciento siete, suscrita ante el Notario Julio Corvetti a las quince horas del cinco de abril de mil novecientos sesenta y ocho, el señor Alberto París Molina traspasó a Nombre101189 y Richard Gantt Harris, los derechos de arrendamiento sobre un área de doce hectáreas en la Isla Harper, también conocida como Isla Tortuga, según consta en el contrato número seiscientos noventa y nueve.I, del expediente número siete mil ochocientos cuarenta y ocho de la Sección de Tierras del Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (folios 1 y 2); 2) Que el anterior traspaso fue comunicado al Instituto de Tierras y Colonización el dieciséis de abril de mil novecientos sesenta y ocho, ente que le dio su autorización a las once horas del seis de marzo de mil novecientos sesenta y nueve (folios 3 y 5); 3) Que el traspaso del contrato de arrendamiento numero 699-I antes indicado, fue aprobado por el Instituto citado, a las diez horas del veinticinco de junio de mil novecientos sesenta y nueve (folio 6); 4) Que posteriormente, en escritura otorgada ante los notarios Bernal Ulloa Flores y Julio Corvetti Sáenz, a las diez horas del veintiuno de junio de mil novecientos sesenta y nueve, el señor Robert Law Thompsom, le vendió a Richard Gantt Harris, su derecho sobre el mencionado arrendamiento (folios 7 y 8) 5) Que el veintisiete de febrero de mil novecientos setenta y tres, el señor Nombre101190 solicitó en arrendamiento 126 hectáreas en Isla Tortuga (folios 10 a 13); 6) Que el señor Alberto París Molina, en memorial del 14 de marzo de mil novecientos setenta y tres, pidió la renovación del contrato que le traspasó a Gantt (folio 17); 7) Que el dieciséis de agosto de mil novecientos setenta y cuatro, el señor Gustavo Iglesias Zeller, Vice-Presidente del "Grupo Ejecutivo Cariari S.A.", presentó a conocimiento del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (ICT), una propuesta para la ejecución de un proyecto de desarrollo turístico en Isla Tortuga (folios 19 a 30); 8) Que la Junta Directiva del I.C.T., en la sesión 2493 del diecinueve de agosto de mil novecientos setenta y cuatro, artículo 1º, adjudicó en arrendamiento para la explotación turística en las Islas Tolinga y Alcatraz o Isla Tortuga a las firmas Proin & Cariari S.A. Asimismo, autorizó a la Administración para suscribir el contrato (folios 31 y 32); 9) Que en relación con la solicitud del señor Nombre101190 , se realizó la inspección y la respectiva publicación del edicto (folios 40, 41 y 48); 10) Que el veintidós de setiembre de mil novecientos setenta y cinco, el señor Gustavo Iglesias Zeller, en representación de "Desarrollo e Inversiones Tortuga S.A.", solicitó al ICT no ejecutar el proyecto turístico en la Isla, sin responsabilidad para las partes, gestión que fue acogida por la Junta Directiva de la Entidad en la sesión Nº2610 del seis de octubre siguiente (folios 71 a 75 y 78); 11) Que la Junta Directiva del Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO), en resolución de las nueve horas treinta y cinco minutos del diecinueve de noviembre de mil novecientos setenta y cinco, otorgó el contrato de arrendamiento Nº2970-I al señor Nombre101191 , de un lote de 126 hectáreas en Isla Tortuga (folios 81 y 82); 12) Que el señor Nombre101190 , en memorial del cuatro de diciembre de mil novecientos setenta y cinco, dirigido a la Sección de Arrendamiento de Tierras del ITCO, solicitó que se autorizara el traspaso de sus derechos de arriendo 2970-I en la isla a Nombre101188 (folios 86 y 87); 13) Que la Junta Directiva del ITCO autorizó el anterior traspaso, a las siete horas del veintiuno de enero de mil novecientos setenta y seis (folio 97); 14) Que el señor Nombre101188 aparece pagando el monto del arrendamiento al ITC desde noviembre de 1976 (folios 100 a 102); 15) Que el veintiuno de diciembre de mil novecientos setenta y siete, el señor Nombre101188 solicitó la prórroga del contrato, que vencía el diecinueve de noviembre de mil novecientos ochenta (folios106 a 109, 114); 16) Que el contrato de arrendamiento se prorrogó en el acta 651 del catorce de marzo de mil novecientos setenta y ocho de la Municipalidad de Puntarenas, por el período comprendido entre el 28 de noviembre de mil novecientos ochenta al veintiocho de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y cinco (folios 117 y 118); 17) Que los señores Nombre101188 y Francisco Cubero Ramírez, constituyeron el once de diciembre de mil novecientos ochenta y uno la sociedad denominada "Cocoteros del Mar, Sociedad Anónima" (folios 136 a 144); 18) Que el señor Nombre101188 solicitó a la Municipalidad de Puntarenas, traspasar el contrato de arriendo 2970-I a la sociedad Cocoteros del Mar S.A., lo que fue aprobado en la sesión 637del veintitrés de febrero de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, artículo 2 inciso g. (folios 147 a 149); 19) Que el cinco de octubre de mil novecientos ochenta y seis, el Departamento de Avalúos de la Dirección General de Tributación Directa, valoró las 126 hectáreas de la Isla Tortuga y determinó que en ella había 120 hectáreas de uso agropecuario y 6 hectáreas de uso turístico (folio 156); 20) Que el diecisiete de abril de mil novecientos ochenta y nueve, Cocoteros del Mar solicitó a la Municipalidad, autorizar al Instituto Geográfico Nacional a realizar el amojonamiento de los cincuenta metros de la zona pública de playa en la Isla Tortuga, lo que se aprobó en la sesión ordinaria Nº421 del veinticuatro de abril del mismo año, artículo 2º, inciso II-1. El amojonamiento se realizó y de ello se informó en La Gaceta Nº25 del cinco de febrero de mil novecientos noventa (folios 162 a 164, 176); 21) Que en formulario recibido el treinta de noviembre de dos mil, "Cocoteros del Mar S.A. presentó ante la Municipalidad de Puntarenas, formal solicitud de concesión de la Isla Tortuga o Tolinga, para el uso que "el plan regulador indique" (folios 293 y 294); 22) Que la entidad local, en la sesión ordinaria No. 311, del tres de setiembre de dos mil uno, artículo 3, inciso h), autorizó a Cocoteros del Mar S.A., para contratar una empresa consultora que elabore el Plan Regulador sobre la zona restringida de la Isla Tolinga (Tortuga)"para que eventualmente posibilite el otorgamiento a favor de esa misma entidad en un derecho de concesión sobre la zona (folios 147 a 149); 23) Que la empresa contrató a la compañía Eco Plan, para la elaboración del plan regulador (folio 302); 24) Que el Instituto Geográfico Nacional, realizó un nuevo amojonamiento del sector costero de Isla Tolinga, entre las siguientes coordenadas Lambert aproximadas del mapa MBCR 1/50000 Hoja Tambor Placa16562: 195267 N- 438236-E, Placa16563 , 195171 N -439139 E NIE62- 438293 E (aviso 05-02, Gaceta Nº 86 del 5 de mayo de 2005, folio 311); 25) Que en oficio ZMT-86-01-05 del diecinueve de enero del dos mil seis, la coordinadora de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre de Puntarenas, indicó lo siguiente: "Por este medio nos permitimos informarle obre el resultado de su solicitud para obtener un uso de suelo ubicado en Dirección11243 . Al respecto le comunicamos que con instrucciones y asesoría del Departamento Legal de esta Municipalidad en relación al análisis realizado por este departamento a su expediente indicamos que su trámite tiene irregularidades desde el inicio por provenir de cesión de derechos o traspaso y a que éstas son prácticas ilegales que se venían dando y otorgando por la Municipalidad las cuales no se ajustaban a lo dispuesto por la Ley 6043, de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, especialmente en su artículo 45. Por tanto, no es posible continuar con el respectivo trámite, con la finalidad de que obtenga un uso de suelo y se procederá al archivo de pasivos de su expediente. De estar anuente a reiniciar el trámite bajo un nuevo número de expediente, deberá presentar ante esta oficina la siguiente documentación (...) Se le conceden 15 días a partir del recibo de esta notificación para que presente lo que estime conveniente. Cabe indicarle que de necesitar usted algún o algunos documentos del expediente a archivar que le puedan servir al nuevo expediente, estamos en la mejor disposición de trasladárselo" (folio 313); 26) Que contra ese oficio 86-01-05, la empresa interpuso revocatoria y apelación (folios 316 a 320); 27) Que en oficio ZMT-101-01-06 del treinta de enero del dos mil seis, se rechazó la revocatoria y se admitió la alzada (folio 324); 28) Que el veinte de marzo del dos mil siete, Cocoteros del Mar S.A., solicitó al Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Paquera de Puntarenas, el otorgamiento de un permiso de uso en la Isla Tortuga, entre los mojones del Instituto Geográfico Nacional 1 a 4 con un área de 4.334 metros, veintitrés decímetros cuadrados, con el fin de instalar unos ranchos en el lugar. Se indicó en la gestión que: "Las instalaciones antes dichas serán utilizadas por los turistas que viajen en excursión o que lleguen al sitio por sus propios medios, cuya atención estará a cargo del permisionario. El plazo de vigencia del permiso de uso se encontraría sujeto a la posibilidad efectiva de otorgamiento de concesiones en la zona costera de interés y sería necesaria la estimación de un canon en calidad de contraprestación pecuniaria" (folios 329 a 342); 29) Que el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Paquera, mediante notificación efectuada el trece de setiembre del dos mil siete informó a Cocoteros del Mar S.A. la existencia de construcciones sin autorización en la zona pública de la isla, según acta notarial de la inspección realizada en el lugar, la existencia de cercas y de letreros de "propiedad privada". Le concedió 15 días para presentar las pruebas de descargo (folios 349 a 351); 30) Que la empresa, en escrito del veintiséis del mismo mes y año, se refirió al acta notarial que sirvió de base a la notificación anterior, alegando que era contraria al Código Notarial, y pidió la nulidad de la notificación efectuada por ilegal (folios 352 a 356); 31) Que el Intendente de Paquera, en oficio ZMT-0101-10-07 del primero de octubre de ese mismo año, rechazó la nulidad alegada (folios 365 a 368); 32) Que el 14 de noviembre siguiente, Cocoteros del Mar S.A., se refirió al oficio ZMT-0101-10-07, rebatiendolo, y a su vez informando de los avances en la elaboración del plan regulador (folios 379 a 382); 33) Que en oficio ZMT-0129-01-08 del veintinueve de enero del dos mil ocho, el intendente municipal le comunicó a Cocoteros del Mar S.A., que procedería a realizar una limpieza de todo el sector de la zona pública de la isla "principalmente las estructuras y implementos de playa que están ocupando todo ese sector", con lo que se manifestó conforme la empresa (folios 394, 395 a 397); 34) Que el Concejo Municipal de Distrito, en la sesión ordinaria Nº384 del primero de mayo del dos mil ocho, rechazó la solicitud de uso de suelo y de construcciones (folios 405 a 408); 35) Contra lo anterior, la empresa interpuso revocatoria y apelación (folios 411 a 417); 36) Que el Concejo, en la sesión extraordinaria Nº392 del diez de junio, rechazó la revocatoria y admitió la apelación (folio 423).- II).- No se probó: 1) Que las construcciones ubicadas en la Isla Tolinga o Tortuga, visibles en las fotografías de folios 346 a 348, hayan contado con permiso municipal de construcción. No se procuró prueba fehaciente al respecto.- III).- En su recurso, manifiesta el apoderado de la empresa que el acuerdo cuestionado contiene una serie de graves errores, así como vicios de forma y de fondo que lo invalidan de manera absoluta.- En primer lugar, se queja de que no se ha resuelto un recurso de revocatoria y apelación contra la resolución ZMT-0101-10-07 del Intendente Municipal, lo que a su juicio evidencia desorden y desinterés en el manejo del caso.- Que contrario a lo que afirma el Concejo, sí se le concedió permiso para hacer una construcción en el área restringida del lote que posee, según consta en el documento 2847; que no pidió permiso para construir cabaña, sino para habilitar unos ranchos de determinadas características, en el entendido de que éstos son removibles, es decir, sin una adherencia permanente al suelo. Ello, afirma, con el objeto de proponer una solución viable a su representada, tendiente a mejorar las condiciones del área de visita de turistas y con ello ordenar las actividades que allí se realizan. Que el Plan Regulador se encuentra actualmente en proceso de elaboración, por parte de una empresa consultora contratada al efecto por parte de su representada, y que según lo indicó al Concejo Municipal de distrito, la propuesta final está sujeta a la definición estatal en cuanto a los nuevos requisitos exigidos por el Ministerio de Ambiente. Que además, la empresa solicitó y fue recibida en audiencia para explicar la propuesta del Plan, por lo que no es cierto el supuesto desconocimiento de la municipalidad al respecto. Que dentro del expediente de solicitud de concesión gestionado por la empresa sobre la zona restringida de Isla Tortuga, consta el permiso de construcción No. 2847 aprobado en la sesión 421 del 24 de abril de 1989 y que además, tiene a favor la existencia de contratos de arrendamiento y sus respectivas prórrogas, otorgadas en su oportunidad por el ITCO, y que cuenta con el status legal de ocupante sobre la zona restringida de la Isla Tortuga, dada que su gestión sobre dicho sector costero data desde antes de entrar en vigencia la ley 6043 en el año 1977. Que consecuentemente, hay numerosa documentación que da cuenta de las construcciones existentes en el lugar y de su antigüedad, las cuales siempre se han hecho con permisos municipales.- Que sí es posible otorgar un permiso de uso en el lugar -dada la inexistencia de plan regulador-, lo mismo que autorizar construcciones temporales, pero que la Municipalidad, al negar ambas posibilidades, confunde la figura del permiso con la de la concesión, lo que resulta a su juicio totalmente incongruente y desacertado. Que esa denegatoria carece de toda fundamentación y que se basa en apreciaciones meramente subjetivas que además son imprecisas, contradictorias y falsas y así pide que se declare.- IV).- El Tribunal limita su análisis al acuerdo que se impugna, tomado por el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Paquera en la sesión ordinaria Nº384 del primero de mayo del dos mil ocho, mediante el cual, denegó una solicitud planteada por la empresa Cocoteros del Mar S.A., para que se le otorgue un permiso de uso en la Isla Tortuga, entre los mojones del Instituto Geográfico Nacional 1 a 4, en un área de 4.334 metros, 23 decímetros cuadrados, con el fin de instalar unos ranchos en el lugar, a fin de usarlos en la atención de turistas que viajen en excursión o que lleguen al sitio por sus propios medios, a cargo del permisionario.- Como antecedente, advierte el Tribunal, que tal y como se alega, la empresa ha ocupado la isla durante mucho tiempo, de hecho, fue arrendataria de ésta hasta el año de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, según contrato suscrito en su oportunidad por la Municipalidad de Puntarenas, que ya se extinguió por cumplimiento del plazo.- Ahora bien, a la fecha, no se ha otorgado ni concesión ni permiso de uso a Cocoteros del Mar S.A., aunque ésta solicitó ambas cosas al Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Paquera.- La primera gestión está pendiente de resolver, y la segunda -como se dijo- fue denegada en el acto que aquí se cuestiona.- A continuación, se analizan las razones que adujo el Concejo para tal denegatoria, a fin de determinar si justifican o no esa decisión.- V).- Como primera cuestión, resulta esencial recordar que los territorios insulares de nuestro país son, en su totalidad, bienes de dominio público que forman parte de la zona marítimo terrestre y que además, por disposición expresa de la ley 6043, están sometidos a un régimen especial, que trasciende el común que regula los demás territorios que integran esa zona.- El legislador, guardó especial recelo en el tema, al punto de exigir una aprobación legislativa de las concesiones que eventualmente se lleguen a otorgar en las islas nacionales, cuidado particular que mutatis mutandi debe trasladarse también al estudio y análisis, no sólo de ese tipo de actos, sino también de cualesquiera otros que puedan dictar las municipalidades o los demás órganos competentes, en esos territorios, como lo es el caso de los permisos de uso.- Este Tribunal, en la sentencia Nº250-2008 de las once horas del veintinueve de abril de dos mil ocho, al respecto indicó:

"Las Islas requieren concesión por parte del Estado, en tanto son un bien de dominio Nombre101192úblico, que pertenece a la Nación -artículo 6 de la Constitución Política, 3.1 y 75 de la Ley de Aguas N° 276 de 26 de agosto de 1942, artículo 1°. 10, 11 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre-. Las islas e islotes forman parte de la zona marítimo terrestre y son susceptibles de concesión a excepción de las islas sometidas a un régimen especial, como es el caso de Isla el Coco, San Lucas, Caño, Cabo Blanco, Negritos y Nombre101192ájaros. Al tenor de lo establecido en el artículo 42 Nombre101192árrafo último de la ley N° 6043, "...Si la concesión se refiere a una isla o islote marítimos, o parte de las mismas, será necesaria la aprobación legislativa" (el destacado no es del original). En la misma dirección el artículo 37 ibídem dispone que, los proyectos de desarrollo turístico en islas e islotes declaradas turísticas, requieren autorización legislativa previa. En virtud de que se trata de un área que integra la zona marítimo terrestre y, de un bien de la Nación, el legislador ordinario, en plena armonía con el numeral 121 inciso 14) y de la Carta Política, dispuso en el numeral citado de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, que ese tipo de concesiones requiere aprobación legislativa. Debe tenerse claro que, las Municipalidades son simples administradoras de la referida zona y que la titularidad de las mismas es de la "Nación", según clasificación de bienes hecha por la Sala Constitucional ( Vid Sentencia N° 2006-00454); lo que implica una titularidad especialísima - es de todos los integrantes de la Nación-, concepto que supera el de pertenencia a una determinada Administración Nombre101192ública e inclusive el concepto de Estado entendido como persona jurídica global que representa a aquella colectividad. La aprobación legislativa que exige la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre para este tipo de concesiones, es un acto de control, que por la naturaleza del órgano que la realiza, incluye aspectos políticos y de legalidad y no solo éste último aspecto -como lo entiende la actora- puesto que la intervención legislativa modifica el régimen original de tramitación esencialmente administrativo, previsto en la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. En consecuencia, con la aprobación legislativa y no antes, es que las concesiones otorgadas podrían alcanzar su plena perfección. El contrato administrativo que en este caso se ha suscrito "no queda completo, ni produce efectos naturales", hasta tanto no sobrevenga la aprobación legislativa (Sentencia de Sala Constitucional 06-454)".

La Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, recientemente, también se refirió al tema, estableciendo algunos principios que refuerzan ese carácter especial de las islas e islotes.- Dijo esa Sala:

"IV.- El numeral primero de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, número 6043, dispone la demanialidad o dominio público de la zona marítimo terrestre, al señalar que forma parte del patrimonio nacional perteneciente al Estado y, por lo tanto, es inalienable e imprescriptible. De conformidad con el canon 9 ejúsdem, dicha zona está conformada por la franja de doscientos metros de ancho a lo largo de los litorales Atlántico y Pacífico de la República, cualquiera que sea su naturaleza, medidos horizontalmente a partir de la línea de pleamar ordinaria y los terrenos y rocas que deje el mar en descubierto en la marea baja. Agrega que, para todos los efectos legales, comprende también a las islas, islotes y peñascos marítimos, así como toda tierra o formación natural que sobre salga del nivel del océano dentro del mar territorial de la República. Queda exceptuada la Isla del Coco, la cual es del dominio y posesión directos del Estado y aquellas otras islas cuyo dominio o administración se determinen en esa ley o en leyes especiales. Esa zona se compone de dos secciones –artículo 10 ibídem-: 1) zona pública, que es la franja de 50 metros de ancho a contar de la pleamar ordinaria y las áreas que quedan al descubierto durante la marea baja; y 2) zona restringida, es decir, la franja de los 150 metros restantes o por los demás terrenos en casos de islas. Los islotes, peñascos y demás áreas pequeñas y formaciones naturales que sobresalgan del mar corresponden a la zona pública. Por su parte, los cánones 39 y 40 de dicha legislación disponen que las municipalidades son las competentes para otorgar las concesiones en la zona restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre ubicada en su territorio. El numeral 42 exige, para que el acto administrativo de concesión resulte eficaz, la aprobación de varios entes descentralizados así como del Parlamento, según el destino y naturaleza del bien. Dispone ese artículo de la Ley 6043: “ Las concesiones en las áreas turísticas requieren la aprobación del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. En las demás áreas de la zona marítimo terrestre la aprobación corresponderá al Instituto de Tierras y Colonización ./ Estos institutos no podrán denegar la aprobación, salvo que ésta viole la ley, lo que deberán indicar expresamente, en forma razonada. / Si la concesión se refiere a una isla o islote marítimos, o parte de las mismas, será necesaria la aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa. ”(Lo subrayado y resaltado en negrita no son del original). Tocante a la concesión de islas o islotes marítimos, lo anterior es reafirmado por el canon 43 del Reglamento de esa Ley, Decreto Ejecutivo número 7841-P del 16 de diciembre de 1977 y sus reformas, al disponer: “ En el caso de solicitudes de concesión sobre parte o el total de islas o islotes marítimos, deberá remitirse a la Asamblea Legislativa, el original del contrato de concesión y copia del expediente, con todos los antecedentes del caso para su aprobación. ” Para el sub júdice, interesa determinar si la aprobación impartida por el Parlamento es solamente de legalidad, en cuyo caso se estaría ante un acto reglado, y, por tanto, sólo por ese motivo podría denegarse la aprobación; o si por el contrario, también abarca aspectos de oportunidad y conveniencia. Es menester indicar, previo al análisis respectivo, que el requerimiento de la aprobación legislativa, distinto a lo señalado por el casacionista, encuentra asidero o fundamento constitucional en el canon 140 inciso 19 de la Carta Política. Dispone esa norma: “ Son deberes y atribuciones que corresponden conjuntamente al Presidente y al respectivo Ministro de Gobierno: … 19) Suscribir los contratos administrativos no comprendidos en el inciso 14) del artículo 121 de esta Constitución, a reserva de someterlos a la aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa cuando estipulen exención de impuestos o tasas, o tengan por objeto la explotación de servicios públicos, recursos o riquezas naturales del Estado. / La aprobación legislativa a estos contratos no les dará carácter de leyes ni los eximirá de su régimen jurídico administrativo . No se aplicará lo dispuesto en este inciso a los empréstitos u otros convenios similares, a que se refiere el inciso 15) del artículo 121, los cuales se regirán por sus normas especiales. ”(Lo subrayado no es del original). Es diáfana esa disposición al señalar que, tratándose de contratos cuyo objeto esté referido, entre otros, a recursos o riquezas naturales del Estado, como son las islas o islotes marítimos, se requiere, necesariamente, la aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa, sin que ello implique una variación en el régimen jurídico administrativo aplicable. No obstante que dicha disposición constitucional está referida a contratos firmados por el Poder Ejecutivo, tratándose de convenios suscritos por otros órganos o entes, por ejemplo las municipalidades, si su objeto es alguno de los ahí señalados, verbigracia, los “ recursos o riquezas naturales del Estado ”, tal y como sucede en el sub lite, por principio, no sólo resulta conveniente, sino necesaria la aprobación legislativa, en virtud del interés público, o más aún, interés nacional involucrado según lo indica la Sala Constitucional en los votos números 2006-454 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 25 de enero del 2006 y 2007-2063 de las 14 horas 40 minutos del 14 de febrero del 2007. Por otro lado, del tenor literal del canon 42 de la Ley 6043, se deduce con claridad que lo dispuesto en el párrafo segundo, sea la imposibilidad de negar la aprobación salvo por razones de legalidad, sólo está referido al Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (ICT) y al Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO), hoy Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA). Señala dicho párrafo: “ Estos institutos no podrán denegar la aprobación , salvo que ésta viole la ley, lo que deberán indicar expresamente, en forma razonada. ”(Lo subrayado es suplido). ¿Cuáles institutos?, pues los señalados en el párrafo primero: ICT e ITCO, hoy IDA. Asimismo, resulta sintomático el hecho de que lo señalado en torno a la aprobación de la Asamblea Legislativa se ubique en un párrafo posterior de esa disposición, lo cual hace presumir que no deviene obligatoria y tampoco que el contralor sea de mera legalidad. Si no fuese de esta manera, el actual párrafo tercero se habría insertado luego del primero, para que lo cubriera lo dispuesto en el segundo. Por demás, parece lógico que así sea. No tiene ningún sentido poner a los señores Diputados a valorar si se cumplieron los requisitos legales para el otorgamiento de concesiones. Esa es una función administrativa que la municipalidad o el instituto correspondiente están llamados a hacer, y por la que no se justificaría elevar un expediente de concesión a la Asamblea Legislativa. En todo caso, cualquier duda acerca de la manera de interpretar dicho canon 42 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, concretamente, respecto de la aprobación que debe impartir el Parlamento cuando la concesión tenga como objeto una isla o islote, quedó zanjada en la señalada sentencia 454 de las 14 horas 55 minutos del 25 de enero del 2006 de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en donde, en lo de interés, se indica: “ XI.- DEL USO Y APROVECHAMIENTO DE LAS ISLAS E ISLOTES. … Por ello, se estima, que además de necesaria es conveniente la exigencia de la aprobación legislativa en este tipo de contratos (concesión sobre islas e islotes), en tanto actúa a modo de control político respecto de un " bien de la Nación " de fundamental importancia, al estar ubicado en el mar territorial, sobre el que el Estado ejerce su soberanía, en forma completa y exclusiva (artículo 6 constitucional). Asimismo, es útil y necesario un amplio debate en el Plenario Legislativo, a fin de que los diputados examinen el objeto, fin, oportunidad y legalidad de la concesión. Nótese que la explotación y aprovechamiento de este " bien de la Nación " tiene fuertes repercusiones a nivel económico, social, además de las ambientales y ecológicas, e inclusive políticas; motivo por el cual debe darse participación a todas las fracciones representadas … XII.- CONTINUACIÓN. (1).- Asimismo, es importante advertir que la doctrina ha entendido que la aprobación representa una declaración fundada en valoraciones sobre el mérito, oportunidad, utilidad y legalidad del acto sometido a su conocimiento; de donde se constata que el sujeto que aprueba no coopera a la formación del acto sometido a su aprobación, únicamente declara que el acto sometido a su examen es útil y oportuno, para tener así por realizada la condición de la cual la ley hace depender la eficacia del acto. Es decir, que la actuación legislativa en esta materia actúa como condicionante de eficacia jurídica de este tipo de contratos, en tanto el contrato no queda completo ni produce efectos naturales hasta tanto no sobreviene esta aprobación; constituyéndose en un control, no sólo de legalidad, sino también de orden político. De manera que, en este caso, la Asamblea Legislativa no está legitimada para integrar su voluntad al contrato que aprueba, por cuanto ésta fue expresada por el sujeto que tramitó y ante quien se gestionó la concesión, sea, la respectiva municipalidad que formula la consulta ante la Asamblea. Así, el órgano legislativo, puede aprobarlo o improbarlo en su totalidad -no parcialmente-, dependiendo de la oportunidad, legalidad y bondad misma del contrato , pero sin modificarlo o transformarlo, porque la potestad de suscripción de la concesión corresponde exclusivamente a las municipalidades. De manera que una eventual intervención de la Asamblea en cuanto al contenido de las concesiones de islas o islotes por parte de los legisladores, haría inconstitucional el acto, en perjuicio de la autonomía municipal, constitucionalmente reconocida en el artículo 170. ”(Sólo lo subrayado no es del original). A la luz del anterior precedente, resulta claro que la aprobación impartida por la Asamblea Legislativa tocante a concesiones otorgadas por las municipalidades respecto de islas o islotes marítimos, no sólo es de legalidad, sino que, atendiendo a su naturaleza intrínseca (fundamentalmente política) abarca también aspectos de oportunidad y conveniencia, lo cual implica que no se está ante un acto reglado. Por el contrario, hay manifestación de discrecionalidad gubernativa de primer grado (...)" (RES: 000771-F-S1-2008, de las dieciséis horas del dieciocho de noviembre de dos mil ocho).- VI).- Ahora bien, el primer agravio del recurso cuestiona que el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de Distrito, indicara que la denegatoria del permiso se dio, entre otras razones, porque la interesada no aportó la solicitud de concesión, con los requisitos exigidos.- Esa razón ciertamente no resulta válida, pues la valoración de los requisitos para obtener una concesión, es un asunto que debe ventilarse dentro de la gestión concreta que en ese sentido formuló la interesada y no dentro de la petición de un permiso de uso de suelo, que es el que aquí se conoce. El Concejo Municipal de Distrito confunde y mezcla, indebidamente en este tema específico, dos procedimientos, que aunque están vinculados entre sí, mantienen siempre su independencia, y así deben ser resueltos.- Se trata de una irregularidad en el acto, sin embargo, y como se verá, no es de naturaleza sustancial, ya que sí hay motivos válidos, razonables y ajustados a las competencias municipales para decidir en la forma en que se hizo.- VII).- Otra de las razones aducidas para la denegación del permiso, lo es la inexistencia, a la fecha, de un plan regulador debidamente aprobado (no se entra aquí a analizar la validez de un plan preparado por una empresa privada, en tanto ello no es objeto del recurso).- Al respecto cabe señalar, que ciertamente, la aprobación de dicho plan no es un requisito sine qua non para el otorgamiento de aquel tipo de permisos -que por su propia naturaleza tienen efectos precarios-, sin embargo, si lo que se pretende es utilizar para fines turísticos una parte de la zona restringida de la isla, que como se dijo tiene una protección legislativa especial, al menos debe conocerse a ciencia cierta, cuáles son las áreas que tienen tal vocación dentro del territorio insular, y de acuerdo con un principio básico de planificación y desarrollo sostenible (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), en protección de la zona debe conocerse de manera fehaciente, el tipo de uso que se le dará o podrá darse a esas áreas, según las condiciones particulares del terreno, pues el otorgamiento de un permiso de uso no puede separarse de los criterios técnicos que existen sobre la "vocación" del suelo.- De acuerdo con la información que obra en el expediente, en Isla Tortuga hay terrenos tanto de vocación turística como agropecuaria, así lo señaló un avalúo de Tributación Directa elaborado hace varios años, sin embargo, ambas áreas no están claramente identificadas, ni por la Municipalidad, ni por la interesada, por lo menos no consta así en la documental que compone el legajo administrativo, y de hecho, lo único que existe de momento es el amojonamiento de la zona pública por parte del Instituto Geográfico Nacional.- Por eso, si a la fecha no se sabe ni siquiera de una forma inicial, cuáles son las áreas explotables turísticamente, lleva razón la Municipalidad al utilizar con base en esa circunstancia, un criterio de prudencia y de ejercicio razonable de sus competencias, denegando el permiso de uso, lo mismo que el levantamiento de cualquier tipo de edificación en el lugar.- Además, la Municipalidad ha constatado la existencia de varias construcciones en la zona restringida de la isla, y según ha podido observar este Despacho, no hay constancia de que se hayan levantado previa autorización municipal.- Aunque la empresa recurrente discute el valor de una inspección efectuada en el lugar, por cuestiones relativas al incumplimiento de requisitos del acta notarial levantada y a la forma de notificación, es lo cierto que no se discute la existencia de las construcciones, pues incluso se aportaron varias fotografías de ellas (folios 346 a 348), y tampoco se ha logrado acreditar, ni en sede municipal ni en esta de jerarquía impropia, que la compañía haya contado con permiso de la Municipalidad de Puntarenas para todas ellas. Esa circunstancia -inexistencia de permisos-, podría incluso dar lugar a la demolición de lo construido, sin perjuicio de otro tipo de responsabilidades, y en tales condiciones, resulta razonable y por lo tanto ajustado a derecho, que el Concejo Municipal de Distrito haya optado por aclarar primero esa situación y denegar el permiso de uso, a fin de no correr el riesgo de autorizar el uso de un bien de dominio público, a quien podría haber incurrido en violaciones al ordenamiento jurídico, en la utilización de esa zona concreta.- VIII).- Asimismo, la denegatoria se fundó en el hecho de que al día de hoy, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía no ha emitido la certificación del área protegida en esa zona.- Esa circunstancia resulta determinante, dado que si hay zonas boscosas en la isla -como en efecto existen-, y aún está pendiente concretar si debe hay o no áreas protegidas, y su delimitación, lo actuado entonces por las autoridades municipales, es conteste con la correcta aplicación del principio precautorio, que rige en materia ambiental, dada la necesidad de proteger, previo al otorgamiento de cualquier autorización en la isla, el patrimonio forestal del Estado, en cuyo caso, la competencia del asunto, respecto de ellas, pasaría a ser del Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones (MINAET).- Adviértase en este sentido, que la propia empresa manifestó, en su recurso, que la propuesta final del plan regulador está sujeta a la definición estatal en cuanto a los nuevos requisitos exigidos por el Ministerio de Ambiente, por lo cual estima este Despacho que el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Paquera, no hizo sino garantizar la vigencia del artículo 50 constitucional, y en esa medida, no se encuentra ilegalidad alguna en lo decidido.- IX).- Finalmente, resulta oportuno referirse a la queja del recurrente, en el sentido de que no se ha resuelto un recurso de revocatoria y apelación contra la resolución ZMT-0101-10-07 del Intendente Municipal de Paquera.- De la información que hay en el expediente se advierte que, el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Paquera, mediante notificación del trece de setiembre del dos mil siete informó a Cocoteros del Mar S.A. la existencia de construcciones sin autorización en la zona pública de la isla, según acta notarial de la inspección realizada en el lugar, la existencia de cercas y de letreros de "propiedad privada", concediéndole 15 días para presentar las pruebas de descargo (folios 349 a 351); la empresa, en escrito del veintiséis del mismo mes y año, se refirió al acta notarial que sirvió de base a la notificación anterior, alegando que era contraria al Código Notarial, y pidió la nulidad de la notificación efectuada por ilegal (folios 352 a 356); gestión que fue denegada por el Intendente de Paquera, en oficio ZMT-0101-10-07 del primero de octubre de ese mismo año (folios 365 a 368).- Ahora bien, el 14 de noviembre siguiente, Cocoteros del Mar S.A., se refirió al oficio ZMT-0101-10-07, rebatiéndolo e informando de los avances en la elaboración del plan regulador (folios 379 a 382).- Este último escrito es el único que consta en el expediente, en relación con el oficio que se invoca en el recurso, y de su texto no puede inferirse que se trata de un recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio, pues así no se indicó en ese memorial. El interesado, se limitó a indicar que "en tiempo y forma doy respuesta a los puntos 2 y 3 del Oficio ZMT-0101-10-07", dando una serie de explicaciones, de las cuales no se desprende en modo alguno que se estén interponiendo recursos ordinarios contra lo decidido por el Intendente.- En esa medida, la omisión que se acusa no se dio, por lo que debe rechazarse este alegato.- X).- En virtud de todo lo expuesto, lo procedente es confirmar el acuerdo impugnado, dado que es sustancialmente conforme con el ordenamiento jurídico administrativo.- Igualmente, debe darse por agotada la vía administrativa, pues lo aquí resuelto carece de ulterior recurso.-

POR TANTO:

Se confirma el acuerdo apelado y se da por agotada la vía administrativa.- Rose Mary Chambers Rivas Hubert Fernández Argüello I. Rocío Rojas Morales Municipal Cocoteros del Mar S.A. c/ Municipalidad de Paquera Nombre5139