Nullity of municipal agreement delegating to private parties the distribution of a maritime-terrestrial zone concessionNulidad de acuerdo municipal que delegó a particulares reparto de concesión en zona marítimo terrestre

No. 2088-2010 THIRD SECTION OF THE CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Anexo A, Goicoechea, at sixteen hours fifteen minutes on the thirty-first of May, two thousand ten.

This Tribunal hears, as improper hierarchical superior, the accumulated municipal Appeals filed by Nombre101357, administrative assistant, with identity card number CED77646, and Nombre101356, driver, with identity card number CED77647, both of legal age, single, and residents of Parrita, against agreement number 5, Article Three, point number 1, Matter 5, of ordinary session number 2194-2009, of February sixteen, two thousand nine.

Judge Fernández Brenes writes, and;

WHEREAS:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts are deemed proven as relevant for the resolution of the appeal under study: 1.) That on October five, two thousand seven, Mrs. Nombre101357 filed a request for a concession (concesión) of a lot located in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), in Esterillos Oeste, in the Único district, canton of Parrita, Province of Puntarenas, with an area of nine hundred thirty-four square meters and eighty-two square decimeters, with a frontage of forty-nine meters forty-seven decimeters, fifty meters two decimeters deep, with a house, and the following boundaries: North: Sol de Ilusiones, Sociedad Anónima and Grettel Vega Cisneros; South: public street, East: public street and West: José Manuel Toca Reddonda, for recreational residential use, based on cadastral map number P-316158-96, in the name of Nombre101356 (map on folio 2; request on folio 4); 2.) That the previous request was processed at the Municipality of Parrita under expediente number 2872-2007 (by reference from the minutes of the challenged agreement, on folio 14); 3.) That on August twenty-one, two thousand eight, Mr. Nombre101356 filed a request for a concession of a lot located in the maritime-terrestrial zone, in Esterillos Oeste, in the Único district, canton of Parrita, Province of Puntarenas, with an area of seven hundred sixty-seven square meters thirteen square decimeters, with a frontage of fifteen meters, fifty-one meters sixteen decimeters deep, with a house, and the following boundaries: North, South and West: Municipality of Parrita, East: public street, for recreational residential use, based on cadastral map number P-917369-2004, in the name of Nombre101677 (map on folio 40; request on folio 45); 4.) That the previous request was processed at the Municipality of Parrita under expediente number 2907-2008 (by reference from the minutes of the challenged agreement, on folio 14); 5.) That upon conducting the corresponding field inspection for both requests, it was evidenced that despite being over different areas, they have an overlap of a part of the land (by reference from the minutes of the challenged agreement, on folio 14); 5.) That given the previous situation, through agreement number 5, Article Three, point number 1, Matter 5, of ordinary session number 2194-2009, of February sixteen, two thousand nine, the Municipal Council resolved: "Having reviewed the case records, conducted the field inspection, and the ownership history of the involved parcels, it is necessary, in order to continue with the procedures, to adjust the maps, distributing the sum of the areas in equal parts, that is, approximately 687.51 m2 per parcel, maps on which this Municipality would indeed issue a ruling regarding the Concession, therefore the corresponding prevention must be made" (folios 14 and 15); 6.) That in adopting the previous decision, the deliberative body reasoned "That since none of the requested areas have been Concessioned, this Municipality can resolve on the petition of both, even though it might seem that one of the requests has more possibilities than the other, however, this Municipality CANNOT knowingly leave an area of less than 500 m2, by granting another that does comply with the provisions of Article 65 of the regulation to law 6043" (folios 14 and 15); 7.) That against the previous decision, on March two and three, two thousand nine, respectively, Mrs. Nombre101357 and Mr. Nombre101356 filed motions for reconsideration with appeal in subsidy (folios 18 to 22 and 78 front and back); and, 8.) That through agreements number 5 and 6, Article Four, Matter number 7, of ordinary session number 2198-2009, of March nine, two thousand nine, the Council rejected the reconsideration filed by Nombre101356 and Nombre101357, respectively, admitting the appeal before the Contencioso Administrativo Tribunal (folios 79 and 23, respectively).

II.- ON THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANTS.- Even though both appellants formulate their challenges in different briefs, they both coincide in the considerations that motivate them; namely: a.) The absolute nullity of the agreement, by failing to apply the regime that regulates the granting of concessions under the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre), which establishes the right of priority, and thereby, due process; b.) For ruling by going beyond what is established in the referenced law ("extra petita"), to try to adapt the requests to comply with the minimum requirement of five hundred square meters; so that the overlap of the lands cannot be considered a benefit for either of the two parties, and the letter of the law must be applied rigorously; b.) That in this case, adopting a "Solomonic solution" is not possible, in which neither of the two is willing to waive what they consider "rightfully theirs," where the Municipality cannot modify the requests submitted, that being the exclusive power of the administered party, not of the local corporation; c.) The lack of reasoning in the agreement, by not indicating the normative basis for the ruling; given that the exercise of sovereign powers has a limit, in this case, the literal wording of the law. Both petitioners claim occupation of the lots requested in concession, the first for more than ten years, and the second since before the year nineteen ninety-six. For his part, Mr. Nombre101356 claims that since November two, two thousand, he had processed a concession over the same strip of land that Mrs. Nombre101357 subsequently requested, which was processed in expediente number 2258-2000, without having waived his right or desisted; nor was there any ruling from the Municipality regarding it. (Folios 18 to 22, 31 to 37, 78, 107 to 114, and 115 to 116).

III.- ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN STATUS OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE AND ITS LEGAL REGIME.- Throughout human history, the great economic, commercial, and also security importance - regarding national defense - of the coast for any country or state organization has been noted. Thus, with respect to our country, since the colonial era, in the various regulations that have governed this property, the coastline has remained destined for public use; as it was always qualified and characterized as a public domain property (demanial), which endows it with all the characteristics of public domain status, i.e., its inalienability, imprescriptibility, unattachability, as well as its subjection to police power regarding its use and enjoyment, as indicated by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 7, of fifteen hours five minutes on January twenty, nineteen ninety-three:

"It is clear then, without detracting from the mentioned colonial-era precedent, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the land reserve along both coastlines has not been part of the vacant lands - the Crown lands of the Colony - but rather has always been subject to a distinct legal regime, that of public domain property, and therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter enacted throughout the 20th century - culminating with the current Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977 - the classification of the lands comprised in said zone as public domain property was obviously maintained. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprised the part of the coasts of both seas bathed by the ebb and flow, extending up to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the banks of rivers up to the point where they were navigable or affected by the tides. The legislation of this century refined the extension of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but at no time denied its character as public domain property and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability; [...] From this brief study on the legislation regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is easy to conclude that the 200-meter strip from the ordinary high tide line along both coasts, defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone by Article 9 of the current Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, has been public domain - and the lands comprised therein, public domain properties - since 1828, at least. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present have introduced on the matter have never generally disaffected these 200 meters; rather, the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a strip greater in extension - the so-called maritime mile - but never smaller." (Considerando II. The highlighting is not from the original.)

By virtue of the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, the maritime-terrestrial zone acquires the condition of public domain property of the Nation, a consideration that is reinforced by Article 3.1 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), "Article 3.- The following are likewise national property:

I.- The beaches and maritime zones"; and Article 1 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, as it literally states:

"The maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and enjoyment are subject to the provisions of this Law." In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber ruled in judgments number 2000-10466 and 2002-3821; as did the Third Section of the Contencioso Administrativo Tribunal, acting as administrative hierarchical superior, in resolution number 128-2001, of eight hours on February sixteen, two thousand one:

"VI.- Correspondingly to what has been said, the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection is an obligation of the State and its institutions – including, of course, the corresponding Municipalities – and even of all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and enjoyment are subject to the provisions of Law No. 6043 on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone." IV.- ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE.- It is the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, in Article 3, that confers upon the municipalities – that have coasts within their territorial jurisdiction – the special function of administering this property, by assigning them the task of "... directly ensuring compliance with the norms of this law concerning the domain, development, enjoyment, and use of the maritime-terrestrial zone and especially the tourist areas of the coastlines.

The usufruct and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone, both the public zone and the restricted zone, corresponds to the municipality of the respective jurisdiction." By which, by express mandate of the law, they are responsible for its administration, obviously in the areas not excluded from the application of this regime – namely, the Bahía Culebra Integral Development Project, better known as the Golfo de Papagayo Project, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 75 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law itself, remains under the administration of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT); the Beaches of Doña Ana (near Puntarenas) and Playa Bonita (in Puerto Limón), are also under the administration of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute; the lands transferred through subsection b) of Article 41 of Law number 5337, of August 27, 1973, to the Board of Port Administration and Economic Development of the Atlantic Coast (JAPDEVA), comprising a strip of land ten kilometers inland from the sea, extending from the Port of Moín to the Barra del Colorado, and are lands forming part of the patrimony of said institution; the Mata Limón zone, comprising the port zone of Puerto Caldera, subject to Law number 5582, of October 11, 1974, and Executive Decree number 11494-T, of May 19, 1980, in which the administrator of this zone is designated as the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT), through the Port Works Directorate; and Playa Tivives, as its urbanization was leased based on a contract with the State, before the enactment of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, to the Cooperative Tivives, R.L., and by virtue of Article 80 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, the application to this beach of Article 20 of the Law, regarding the use and occupation of the public zone, is exempted. Thus, it is before the respective Municipality where permits for the use and enjoyment (concessions) of the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone must be processed, with the Council being responsible for the decision; for the final approval, depending on the zone in question, before the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, if it is a zone declared as tourist, or before the Institute of Agrarian Development (IDA), if it is not a tourist zone, and the Legislative Assembly, in the case of islands. They are also authorized to charge the respective fees on the concessions granted in those zones, thus acquiring the character of tax administrations for the management of that tribute. Finally, it is warned that the oversight and administration functions entrusted by express law to the municipalities can in no way be understood or interpreted as an expression of a right of property or possession over this strip of land, precisely by virtue of the public domain status of this property.

V.- ON THE ILLEGALITY OF THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENT.- It is precisely due to the omission in fulfilling the administration function of the maritime-terrestrial zone, entrusted by legal mandate to the municipalities, that the appealed decision is not in conformity with the legal order. Thus, the Council exceeded its powers, but not in the manner considered by the appellants, since, in its capacity as administrator of a public domain property, it cannot delegate to private individuals (the administered parties), and in this case, directly interested parties, not only the decision on the matter but, more seriously, the allocation of a public domain property. In this sense, what is appropriate is to resolve both concession requests, according to the parameters established in the legal order, recalling even that the final decision is not a regulated act, precisely in consideration of the character of the property in question (public domain), so that, both for reasons of legality and of opportunity and convenience, the solutions may be rejected; but it is insisted, this being a decision that falls solely and exclusively to the deliberative body, according to the legally assigned competence. In this regard, it is recalled that the Administration is not obliged to grant the concession in the form and conditions requested by the petitioner, as it is precisely in the exercise of the oversight function that it must assess the requests, to adopt the one that best adapts to the regulations, not only of the Law governing this property, but also those of an environmental and urban nature, as well as, as indicated, discretionary criteria may be used, that is, of opportunity and convenience. Therefore, the challenged act is void, as it implies or translates into the waiver of exercising sovereign powers, which is not possible in accordance with Article 66 of the General Law of Public Administration. Consequently, the referral of the expediente is appropriate, so that the Council may continue processing the requests of Mr. Nombre101357 and Mr. Nombre101356, and resolve in accordance with the law.

THEREFORE

The challenged agreement is annulled. Return the expediente to continue with the procedures.

Hubert Fernández Argüello Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Isaac Amador Hernández Recurso de apelación. Jerarquía impropia municipal.

Nombre101357 and Nombre101356 against the Municipality of Parrita For his part, Mr. Nombre101356 alleges that since November 2, 2000, he had processed a concession over the same strip of land that Mrs. Nombre101357 subsequently requested, which was processed under case file number 2258-2000, without having renounced his right or withdrawn from it; nor has there been any pronouncement from the Municipality regarding it. (Folios 18 to 22, 31 to 37, 78, 107 to 114, and 115 to 116).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">III.- OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN NATURE OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE AND ITS LEGAL REGIME</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">.- Throughout the history of humanity, the great economic, commercial, and also security importance—regarding national defense—that the coast holds for any country or state organization has been noted. Thus, with respect to our country, since the colonial era, in the various regulations that have governed this asset, the coastline has remained destined for public use; while it was </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">always</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">given the qualification and character of a </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">public domain asset (bien demanial)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> (dominical, demanio, or of public domain), which makes it deserving of all the characteristics of public domain status, that is, its inalienability, imprescriptibility, unattachability, as well as its subjection to police power regarding its use and exploitation</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, as noted by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 7, at fifteen hours five minutes on January 20, 1993:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">It is clear then, without diminishing the colonial-era antecedent noted, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the reserve of land along both coastlines has not been part of the public lands</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">—the tierras realengas of the Colony—</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">but rather has always been subject to a distinct legal regime, that characteristic of public domain assets and, therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter enacted throughout the 20th century</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">—culminating with the current Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre No. 6043 of March 2, 1977—</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the classification of the lands included in said zone as public domain assets was obviously maintained.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprised the part of the coasts of both seas washed by the flow and ebb, extending to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the banks of rivers up to the point where they were navigable or were affected by the tides.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">The legislation of this century clarified the extent of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">at no time denied its character as a public domain asset and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> [...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">From this brief study of the legislation on the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is easy to conclude that the strip of 200 meters from the ordinary high tide along both coasts, defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone by Article 9 of the current Ley sobre la Zona marítimo terrestre, has been of public domain—and the lands included in it, public domain assets—since at least 1828. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present has introduced on the matter have never generally declassified these 200 meters; rather, the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a strip greater in extent</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">—the so-called maritime mile—</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">but never lesser.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">" (Considerando II. The emphasis is not from the original.)</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">By virtue of the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the maritime-terrestrial zone acquires the condition of a public domain asset of the Nation</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, a consideration that is reinforced by Article 3.1 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas),</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">Article 3.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">The following are equally national property</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">I.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">Beaches and maritime zones</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">and Article 1 of the Ley de la Zona marítimo terrestre, insofar as it literally states:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">The maritime-terrestrial zone </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> Its protection, as well as its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions, and all inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this Law.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">In a similar vein, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in judgments number 2000-10466 and 2002-3821; as did the Third Section of the Administrative Court (Tribunal Contencioso), acting as administrative superior, in resolution number 128-2001, at eight hours on February 16, 2001:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">VI.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> Correlatively to what has been said, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. Its protection is an obligation of the State and its institutions—including, of course, the corresponding Municipalities—and even of all inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of Law No. 6043 on the Zona Marítimo Terrestre.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">IV.- OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">It is the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, in Article 3, that confers upon the municipalities—which have coasts within their territorial jurisdiction—the special function of administering this asset, assigning them the task of </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"... </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">directly ensuring compliance with the norms of this law regarding the domain, development, exploitation, and use of the maritime-terrestrial zone, and especially of the tourist areas of the coastlines.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101">The usufruct and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone, both the public zone and the restricted zone, corresponds to the municipality of the respective jurisdiction.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">By which, by</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> express mandate of the law, its </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">administration</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> corresponds to them, obviously in the areas that are not excluded from the application of this regime—namely, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">the Proyecto de Desarrollo Integral de Bahía Culebra,</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> or better known as the Proyecto del Golfo de Papagayo, which pursuant to the provisions of Article 75 of the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre itself, remains under the administration of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">the Playas de Doña Ana </span><span style="font-family:Arial">(near Puntarenas)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> and Playa Bonita</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> (in Puerto Limón)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">,</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> are also under the administration of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">the lands that were transferred by subsection b) of Article 41 of Law number 5337, of August 27, 1973, to the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, which comprise a strip of land ten kilometers from the sea inland, and extend from Puerto de Moín to Barra del Colorado, and are lands that form part of the patrimony of said institution; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">the Mata Limón zone, which includes the port area of Puerto Caldera,</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> being subject to Law number 5582, of October 11, 1974, and to Decreto Ejecutivo number 11494-T, of May 19, 1980, in which the administrator of this zone is designated as the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, through the Dirección de Obras Portuarias; and </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Playa Tivives</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, because its urbanization was leased based on a contract with the State, prior to the enactment of the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, to the Cooperativa Tivives, R.L., and by virtue of Article 80 of the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, the application of Article 20 of the Law, regarding the use and occupation of the public zone, is excepted for this beach. So it is that, before the respective Municipality, the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">permits for use and exploitation (concessions) of the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> must be processed, with the Concejo being responsible for the decision</span><span style="font-family:Arial">; for final approval, depending on the zone in question, before the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, if it is a zone declared as tourist, or before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, if it is not a tourist zone, and the Asamblea Legislativa, in the case of islands. They are also authorized to collect the respective fees (cánones) on the concessions granted in those zones, thus acquiring the character of tax administrations, for the management of that levy. Finally, it is noted that the inspection and administration functions entrusted by express law to the municipalities cannot in any way be understood or interpreted as an expression of a right of ownership or possession over this strip of land, precisely by virtue of the public domain nature of this asset.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">V.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENT.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> It is precisely due to an omission in the fulfillment of the function of administering the maritime-terrestrial zone, entrusted by legal mandate to the municipalities, that the appealed decision is non-compliant with the legal system. Thus, the Concejo overstepped its competencies, but not in the manner considered by the appellants, since, in its capacity as administrator of a public domain asset, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">it cannot delegate to private parties (administrated parties), and in this case, directly interested parties, not only the decision on the matter</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">, but more seriously, the allocation of a public domain asset.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> In this regard, what is appropriate is to resolve both concession requests, in accordance with the parameters established in the legal system, remembering even that the final decision is not a regulated act, precisely in consideration of the nature of the asset in question (of public domain), so that, both for reasons of legality as well as opportunity and convenience, the requests may be rejected; but it is insisted, it being a decision that falls solely and exclusively to the deliberative body, according to the legally assigned competence. In this sense, it is recalled that the Administration is not obligated to grant the concession in the form and under the conditions requested by the applicant, since it is precisely in the exercise of its oversight function that it must evaluate the requests, to adopt the one that best adapts to the regulations, not only of the Law governing this asset, but also to those of an environmental and urban nature, as well as, as indicated, it is possible to use discretionary criteria, that is, of opportunity and convenience. Therefore, the challenged act is null, as it implies or translates into the renunciation of the exercise of sovereign powers, which is not possible pursuant to Article 66 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Consequently, the referral of the case file is appropriate, so that the Concejo may continue processing the requests of Mr. Nombre101357</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">and Mr. Nombre101356 , and resolve in accordance with the law.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">POR TANTO</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">The challenged agreement is annulled. Return the case file so that proceedings may continue.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Hubert Fernández Argüello</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> Isaac Amador Hernández</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Exp. No. 09-000739-1027-CA</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Recurso de apelación.

Improper municipal hierarchy.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">Nombre101357</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">and Nombre101356</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">against the Municipalidad de Parrita</span></p> **III.- ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN STATUS (DEMANIALIDAD) OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE (ZONA MARÍTIMO-TERRESTRE) AND ITS LEGAL REGIME**.- Throughout the history of humanity, the great economic, commercial, and also security importance—regarding national defense—that the coast holds for any country or state organization has been evident. Thus, with respect to our country, since the colonial era, in the various regulations that have governed this asset, the shoreline has remained destined for public use; insofar as ***it was always given the designation and character of public domain asset (demanial, demanio or de dominio público), which makes it entitled to all the characteristics of the public domain status (demanialidad), that is, its inalienability, imprescriptibility, unattachability, as well as subjection to the police power regarding its use and exploitation***, as indicated by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice in ruling number 7, at fifteen hours five minutes on January twenty, nineteen ninety-three:

"I. It is clear then, without detriment to the aforementioned colonial-era antecedent, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the land reserve along both coastlines has not been part of the vacant lands (terrenos baldíos)—the crown lands (tierras realengas) of the Colony—but rather has always been subject to a distinct legal regime, that pertaining to public domain assets and, therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter enacted throughout the 20th century—culminating with the current Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre No. 6043 of March 2, 1977—the designation of the lands comprised in said zone as public domain assets was, obviously, maintained. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) comprised the part of the coasts of both seas washed by the ebb and flow, extending to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the banks of rivers up to the point where they were navigable or were affected by the tides. The legislation of this century refined the extent of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but **at no time denied its character as a public domain asset and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability**; [...] From this brief study of the legislation regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), it is easy to reach the conclusion that the strip of 200 meters from the ordinary high-water mark along both coasts defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) by Article 9 of the current Ley sobre la Zona marítimo terrestre, has been of public domain—and the lands therein comprised, public domain assets—since 1828, at least. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present have introduced on the matter have never generally declassified these 200 meters, it being rather the case that the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a strip greater in extent—the so-called maritime mile—but never lesser." (Considerando II. The highlighting is not from the original.)

By virtue of the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Constitución Política, ***the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) acquires the condition of a public domain asset of the Nation***, a consideration that is reinforced by Article 3.1 of the Ley de Aguas, "Article 3.- **The following are equally national property**:

I.- The beaches and maritime zones"; and Article 1 of the Ley de la Zona marítimo terrestre, insofar as it literally provides:

"The maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) **constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible.** Its protection, as well as its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this Law." In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in judgments number 2000-10466 and 2002-3821; as did the Third Section (Sección Tercera) of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, acting as administrative superior, in resolution number 128-2001, at eight hours on February sixteen, two thousand one:

"**VI.-** Correlatively to what has been said, **the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible**. Its protection is an obligation of the State and its institutions—including of course the corresponding Municipalities—and even of all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of Ley No. 6043 on the Zona Marítimo Terrestre." **IV.- ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE (ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE).-** It is the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, in Article 3, which confers upon the municipalities—that have coasts in their territorial jurisdiction—the special function of administration of this asset, by assigning them the task of "...

...to directly ensure compliance with the rules of this law concerning the ownership, development, exploitation, and use of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and especially of the tourist areas of the coastlines." The usufruct and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone, both the public zone and the restricted zone, corresponds to the municipality of the respective jurisdiction." Consequently, by express mandate of the law, its administration is their responsibility, obviously in the areas that are not excluded from the application of this regime – namely, the Proyecto de Desarrollo Integral de Bahía Culebra, better known as the Proyecto del Golfo de Papagayo, which, pursuant to the provisions of Article 75 of the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre itself, remains under the administration of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo; Playas de Doña Ana (near Puntarenas) and Playa Bonita (in Puerto Limón) are also under the administration of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo; the lands transferred under subsection b) of Article 41 of Ley 5337, of August 27, 1973, to the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), which comprise a strip of land ten kilometers inland from the sea, extending from Puerto de Moín to la Barra del Colorado, and are lands forming part of the patrimony of the indicated institution; the Mata Limón zone, comprising the port zone of Puerto Caldera, subject to Ley 5582, of October 11, 1974, and Decreto Ejecutivo 11494-T, of May 19, 1980, which designates the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT), through the Dirección de Obras Portuarias, as the administrator of this zone; and la Playa Tivives, since its urbanization was leased based on a contract with the State, before the enactment of the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, to la Cooperativa Tivives, R.L., and by virtue of Article 80 of the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, the application of Article 20 of the Law, regarding the use and occupation of the public zone, is excepted for this beach. Thus, it is before the respective Municipality where the use and exploitation permits (concessions) for the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone must be processed, with the Council being responsible for the decision; for final approval, depending on the zone in question, before the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (ICT), if it is an area declared as tourist, or before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA), if it is not a tourist zone, and the Asamblea Legislativa, in the case of islands. They are also authorized to collect the respective fees on concessions granted in those zones, thereby acquiring the character of tax administrations for the management of that tax. Finally, it is noted that the functions of oversight and administration entrusted by express law to the municipalities can in no way be understood or interpreted as an expression of a right of ownership or possession over this strip of land, precisely by virtue of the public domain nature of this property.

V.- CONCERNING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENT.- It is precisely due to an omission in the fulfillment of the function of administering the maritime-terrestrial zone, entrusted by legal mandate to the municipalities, that the appealed decision is inconsistent with the legal system. Thus, the Council exceeded its powers, but not in the manner considered by the appellants, since, in its capacity as administrator of a public domain property, it cannot delegate to private individuals (the administered parties), and in this case, directly interested parties, not only the decision of the matter, but more seriously, the distribution of a public domain property. In this regard, what is appropriate is to resolve both concession applications, in accordance with the parameters established in the legal system, recalling even that the final decision is not a strictly regulated act, precisely considering the nature of the property in question (public domain), so that, for reasons of legality, as well as opportunity and convenience, the applications can be rejected; but it is reiterated, being a decision that pertains solely and exclusively to the deliberative body, according to the legally assigned competence. In this sense, it is recalled that the Administration is not obliged to grant the concession in the form and conditions requested by the applicant, as it is precisely in the exercise of its oversight function that it must evaluate the applications, to adopt the one that best conforms to the regulations, not only of the Law governing this property, but also those of an environmental and urban nature, and also, as indicated, it is possible to use discretionary criteria, that is, of opportunity and convenience. Therefore, the challenged act is null, as it implies or translates into the waiver of the exercise of sovereign powers, which is not possible under Article 66 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Consequently, it is appropriate to refer the file back so that the Council continues processing the applications of the individuals Segura Cárdenas and Vega Segura, and decides in accordance with the law.” (The highlighting is not in the original.)

By virtue of the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, **the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) acquires the status of public domain property (bien demanial) of the Nation**, a consideration that is reinforced by Article 3.1 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), " *Article 3.-* ***Are equally of national ownership***: I.- The beaches and maritime zones "; and Article 1 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona marítimo terrestre), insofar as it textually provides:

" *The maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this Law.* " In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in judgments number 2000-10466 and 2002-3821; as well as the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso), acting as administrative head, in resolution number 128-2001, at eight o'clock on February sixteen, two thousand one:

" ***VI.-*** *Correlatively to what has been said, the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection is an obligation of the State and its institutions –including of course the corresponding Municipalities– and even of all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of Law No. 6043 on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone.* " **IV.- OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE.-** It is the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, in Article 3, that confers upon the municipalities –which have coasts within their territorial jurisdiction– the special function of administering this property, by assigning them the task of "*... directly ensuring compliance with the norms of this law regarding the domain, development, exploitation and use of the maritime-terrestrial zone and especially of the tourist areas of the coastlines.* *The usufruct and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone, both of the public zone and the restricted zone, corresponds to the municipality of the respective jurisdiction.*" Whereby, by express mandate of the law, its **administration** corresponds to them, obviously in the areas that are not excluded from the application of this regime –namely, **the Bahía Culebra Comprehensive Development Project (Proyecto de Desarrollo Integral de Bahía Culebra),** or better known as the Papagayo Gulf Project (Proyecto del Golfo de Papagayo), which pursuant to Article 75 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law itself, remain under the administration of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT); **Playa Doña Ana** (near Puntarenas) **and Playa Bonita** (in Puerto Limón) **,** are also under the administration of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT); **the lands that were transferred by subparagraph b) of Article 41 of Law number 5337, of August 27, 1973 to the Board of Port Administration and Economic Development of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA),** which comprise a strip of land ten kilometers inland from the sea, and extends from Puerto de Moín to Barra del Colorado, and are lands that form part of the patrimony of the indicated institution; **the Mata Limón zone, which includes the port zone of Puerto Caldera,** as it is subject to Law number 5582, of October 11, 1974, and Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 11494-T, of May 19, 1980, in which the Ministry of Public Works and Transportation (MOPT) is designated as the administrator of this zone, through the Port Works Directorate; and **Playa Tivives**, inasmuch as its urbanization was leased based on a contract with the State, prior to the enactment of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, by the Cooperative Tivives, R.L., and by virtue of Article 80 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, the application to this beach of Article 20 of the Law, concerning the use and occupancy of the public zone, is excepted. Consequently, it is before the respective Municipality where **use and exploitation permits (concessions) of the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone (permisos de uso y aprovechamiento (concesiones) de la zona restringida de la marítimo terrestre)** must be processed, **the Council (Concejo) being the entity in charge of the decision**; for final approval, depending on the zone in question, before the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), if it is a zone declared as tourist, or before the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), if it is not a tourist zone, and the Legislative Assembly, in the case of islands. Likewise, they are authorized to collect the respective canon fees (cánones) on the concessions granted in those zones, thereby acquiring the character of tax administrations, for the management of that tax. Finally, it is noted that the functions of oversight and administration entrusted by express law to the municipalities can in no way be understood or interpreted as an expression of a right of property or possession over this strip of land, precisely by virtue of the public domain status (demanialidad) of this property.

**V.- OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENT.-** It is precisely due to omission in the fulfillment of the function of administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone, entrusted by legal mandate to the municipalities, that the appealed decision is not in conformity with the legal system. Thus, the Council exceeded its powers, but not in the manner considered by the appellants, since, in its capacity as administrator of a public domain property, **it cannot delegate to private parties (citizens subject to the administration),** and in this case, directly interested parties, **not only the decision of the matter**, but more seriously, **the allocation of a public domain property (bien demanial).** In this sense, what is appropriate is to resolve both concession requests, in accordance with the parameters established in the legal system, remembering even that the final decision does not constitute a fully regulated act, precisely in consideration of the character of the property in question (of public domain), so that, both for reasons of legality, as well as for reasons of opportunity and convenience, the solutions may be rejected; but it is insisted, being a decision that concerns, solely and exclusively, the deliberative body, according to the legally assigned competence. In this sense, it is recalled that the Administration is not obliged to grant the concession in the form and conditions requested by the petitioner, insofar as it is precisely in the exercise of its oversight function that it must evaluate the requests, to adopt the one that best conforms to the regulations, not only of the Law governing this property, but also those of an environmental and urban nature, as well as, as indicated, it is possible to use discretionary criteria, that is, of opportunity and convenience. Therefore, the challenged act is null, as it implies or translates into the waiver of the exercise of sovereign powers (potestades de imperio), which is not possible under Article 66 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). Consequently, the referral of the case file (expediente) is appropriate, so that the Council continues the processing of the requests of Messrs. Nombre101357 and Nombre101356, and resolves in accordance with law.

**POR TANTO** The challenged agreement is annulled. Return the case file so that it may proceed with the procedures.

**Hubert Fernández Argüello** **Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Isaac Amador Hernández** Recurso de apelación. Jerarquía impropia municipal. Nombre101357 and Nombre101356 against Municipalidad de Parrita

No.2088-2010 SECCIÓN TERCERA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A, Goicoechea, a las dieciséis horas quince minutos del treinta y uno de mayo del dos mil diez.

Conoce este Tribunal, como jerarca impropio, de las Apelaciones municipales acumuladas interpuestas por Nombre101357 , asistente administrativa, con cédula de identidad número CED77646 y Nombre101356 , chofer, con cédula número CED77647, ambos mayores, solteros y vecinos de Parrita, contra el acuerdo número 5, Artículo Tercero, punto número 1, Asunto 5, de la sesión ordinaria número 2194-2009, de dieciséis de febrero del dos mil nueve..

Redacta la Juez Fernández Brenes, y;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- HECHOS PROBADOS: De importancia para la resolución de la apelación en estudio, se tienen como probados los siguientes hechos: 1.) Que el cinco de octubre del dos mil siete, la señora Nombre101357 hizo solicitud de concesión de un lote ubicado en la zona marítimo terreste, en Esterillos Oeste, en el distrito Único, cantón de Parrita, de la Provincia de Puntarenas, con una extensión de novecientos treinta y cuatro metros ochenta y dos decímetros cuadrados, con un frente de cuarenta y nueve metros cuarenta y siete decímetros, cincuenta metros dos decímetros de fondo, con casa, y los siguientes linderos: Norte: Sol de Ilusiones, Sociedad Anónima y Grettel Vega Cisneros; Sur: calle pública, Este: calle pública y Oeste: José Manuel Toca Reddonda, para uso habitacional recreativo, sobre la base del plano catastrado número P-316158-96, a nombre de Nombre101356 (plano a folio 2; solicitud a folio 4); 2.) Que la anterior solicitud se tramitó en la Municipalidad de Parrita en expediente número 2872-2007 (por referencia del acta del acuerdo impugnado, a folio 14); 3.) Que el veintiuno de agosto del dos mil ocho, el señor Nombre101356 hizo solicitud de concesión de un lote ubicado en la zona marítimo terreste, en Esterillos Oeste, en el distrito Único, cantón de Parrita, de la Provincia de Puntarenas, con una extensión de setecientos sesenta y siete metros trece decímetros cuadrados, con un frente de quince metros, cincuenta y un metros dieciséis decímetros de fondo, con casa, y los siguientes linderos: Norte, Sur y Oeste: Municipalidad de Parrita, Este: calle pública, para uso habitacional recreativo, sobre la base del plano catastrado número P-917369-2004, a nombre de Nombre101677 (plano a folio 40; solicitud a folio 45); 4.) Que la anterior solicitud se tramitó en la Municipalidad de Parrita en expediente número 2907-2008 (por referencia del acta del acuerdo impugnado, a folio 14); 5.) Que realizada la inspección de campo correspondiente a ambas solicitudes, se evidenció que no obstante ser sobre áreas diferentes, tienen un traslape de una parte del terreno (por referencia del acta del acuerdo impugnado, a folio 14); 5.) Que ante la situación anterior, mediante acuerdo número 5, Artículo Tercero, punto número 1, Asunto 5, de la sesión ordinaria número 2194-2009, de dieciséis de febrero del dos mil nueve, el Concejo de la Municipalidad dispuso: "Vistos los autos, realizada la inspección de campo, antecedentes de dominio de las parcelas involucradas, se hace necesario a fin de continuar con los trámites una adecuación de planos debiendo distribuirse la suma de las áreas en partes iguales, es decir, aproximadamente 687.51 m2 cada parcela, planos sobre los cuales esta Municipalidad sí se pronunciaría respecto del a Concesión, por lo que se deberá de hacer la prevención correspondiente" (folios14 y 15); 6.) Que para la adopción de la decisión anterior, el órgano deliberativo razonó "Que al no estar Concesionada ninguna de las áreas solicitadas puede esta Municipalidad resolver sobre la petitoria de ambas, aún cuando pareciera que una de las solicitudes tiene más posibilidades que la otra, sin embargo NO puede esta Municipalidad con conocimiento el dejar un área inferior a 500 m2, por otorgar otra que si cumple con dispuesto en el artículo 65 del reglamento a la ley 6043" (folios 14 y 15); 7.) Que contra la decisión anterior, el dos y el tres de marzo del dos mil nueve, respectivamente, la señora Nombre101357 y el señor Nombre101356 , formularon los recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio (folios 18 a 22 y 78 frente y vuelto); y, 8.) Que mediante acuerdos número 5 y 6, Artículo Cuarto, Asunto número 7, de la sesión ordinaria número 2198-2009, del nueve de marzo del dos mil nueve, el Concejo rechazó las revocatoria interpuesta por Nombre101356 y Nombre101357 , respectivamente, admitiendo la apelación para ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (folios 79 y 23, respectivamente).

II.- DE LOS AGRAVIOS DE LOS APELANTES.- Aún y cuando ambos apelantes formulan sus impugnaciones en escritos diversos, ambos coinciden en las consideraciones que la motivan; a saber: a.) La nulidad absoluta del acuerdo, al desaplicar el régimen que regula el otorgamiento de las concesiones de la Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, que establece el derecho de prioridad, y con ello, el debido proceso; b.) Por resolverse al ir más allá de lo establecido en la ley de referencia ("extra petita"), para tratar de adecuar las solicitudes al cumplimiento del requisito mínimo de los quinientos metros cuatrados; de manera que el traslape de los terrenos no puede considerarse en beneficio para ninguna de las dos partes, debiendo aplicarse con rigor la letra de la ley; b.) Que en el caso, no resulta posible la adopción de una "solución salomónica", en la que ninguno de los dos está dispuesto a renunciar a lo que consideran por "derecho les corresponde", donde la Municipalidad no puede modificar las solictudes planteadas, siendo potestad exclusiva del administrado, más no de la corporación local; c.) La falta de motivación del acuerdo, al no indicarse el sustento normativo del pronunciamiento; siendo que el ejercicio de las potestades de imperio tienen un límite, en este caso, la literalidad de la ley. Ambos gestionantes alegan una ocupación de los lotes requeridos en concesión, la primera más de diez años, y el segundo desde antes del año de mil novecientos noventa y seis. Por su parte, el señor Nombre101356 , alega que desde el dos de noviembre del dos mil, él había gestionado una concesión sobre la misma franja de terreno que requirió la señora Nombre101357 en forma posterior, que se tramitó en expediente número 2258-2000, sin que hubiese renunciado a su derecho ni tampoco desistido; ni exista pronunciamiento de parte de la Municipalidad, respecto de la misma. (Folios 18 a 22, 31 a 37, 78, 107 a 114 y 115 a 116).

III.- DE LA DEMANIALIDAD DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO-TERRESTRE Y SU RÉGIMEN JURÍDICO.- A lo largo de la historia de la humanidad, se ha denotado la gran importancia económica, comercial y también de seguridad -en lo atinente a la defensa nacional- que tiene la costa para cualquier país u organización estatal. Así, en lo que respecta a nuestro país, desde la época colonial, en las diversas regulaciones que han regulado este bien, el litoral ha permanecido destinado al uso público; en tanto siempre se le dio el calificativo y el carácter de bien demanial (dominical, demanio o de dominio público), lo cual le hace acreedora de todas las características de la demanialidad, sea, su inalienabilidad, imprescriptibilidad, inembargabilidad, así como la sujeción al poder de policía en lo relativo a su uso y aprovechamiento, como lo señaló la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en sentencia número 7, de las quince horas cinco minutos del veinte de enero de mil novecientos noventa y tres:

"Resulta claro entonces, sin demérito del antecedente de la época colonial señalado, que desde el nacimiento de Costa Rica como Estado independiente, la reserva de terreno a los largo de ambos litorales no ha sido parte de los baldíos -las tierras realengas de la Colonia- sino que siempre ha estado sometido a un régimen jurídico distinto, el propio de los bienes de dominio público y, por lo tanto, no reducibles a propiedad privada. En la legislación sobre la materia promulgada a lo largo del siglo XX -hasta culminar con la actual Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre No.6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977- se mantuvo, obviamente, el calificativo de bienes de dominio público de los terrenos comprendidos en dicha zona. Como resultado de la evolución legislativa del siglo XIX, la zona marítimo terrestre comprendía la parte de las costas de ambos mares bañadas por el flujo y reflujo, extendiéndose hasta la distancia de una milla tierra adentro. Comprendía, además, las márgenes de los ríos hasta el sitio en que fueran navegables o fueran afectados por las mareas. La legislación de este siglo fue precisando la extensión de la zona así como los elementos que formaban parte de ella, pero en ningún momento negó su carácter de bien demanial y, en consecuencia, su imprescriptibilidad e inalienabilidad; [...] De este somero estudio sobre la legislación acerca de la zona marítimo terrestre, es fácil llegar a la conclusión de que la franja de 200 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria a lo largo de ambas costas definida como parte de la zona marítimo terrestre por el artículo 9 de la actual Ley sobre la Zona marítimo terrestre, ha sido de dominio público -y los terrenos en ella comprendidos, bienes demaniales- desde 1828, por lo menos. Las variaciones que la legislación del siglo pasado y del presente han introducido sobre la materia nunca han desafectado en forma generalizada estos 200 metros, siendo más bien que la legislación anterior a 1942 y 1943, establecía una franja mayor en extensión -la llamada milla marítima- pero nunca menor." (Considerando II. El resaltado no es del original.)

En virtud de lo anterior, y al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 6 de la Constitución Política, la zona marítimo terrestre adquiere la condición de bien demanial de la Nación, consideración que es reforzada por el artículo 3.1 de la Ley de Aguas, "Artículo 3.- Son igualmente de propiedad nacional:

I.- Las playas y zonas marítimas"; y el artículo 1° de la Ley de la Zona marítimo terrestre, en tanto dispone textualmente:

"La zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del patrimonio nacional, pertenece al Estado y es inalienable e imprescriptible. Su protección, así como sus recursos naturales, es obligación del Estado, de sus instituciones y de todos los habitantes del país. Su uso y aprovechamiento están sujetos a las disposiciones de esta Ley." En igual sentido, se pronunció la Sala Constitucional en sentencia número 2000-10466 y 2002-3821; así como la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso, en funciones de jerarca administrativo, en resolución número 128-2001, de las ocho horas del dieciséis de febrero del dos mil uno:

"VI.- Correlativamente a lo dicho, la zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del patrimonio nacional, pertenece al Estado y es inalienable e imprescriptible. Su protección es obligación del Estado y sus instituciones –incluidas por supuesto las Municipalidades correspondientes- e incluso de todos los habitantes del país. Su uso y aprovechamiento están sujetos a las disposiciones de la Ley No. 6043 sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre." IV.- DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE.- Es la Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, en el artículo 3, la que le confiere a las municipalidades -que tienen costas en su circunscripción territorial-, la especial función de administración de este bien, al asignarle la tarea de "... velar directamente por el cumplimiento de las normas de esta ley referentes al dominio, desarrollo, aprovechamiento y uso de las zona marítimo terrestre y en especial de las áreas turísticas de los litorales.

El usufructo y administración de la zona marítimo terrestre, tanto de la zona pública como de la restringida, corresponde a la municipalidad de la jurisdicción respectiva." Con lo cual, por expreso mandato de la ley, les corresponde su administración, obviamente en las áreas que no están excluidas de la aplicación de este régimen -a saber, el Proyecto de Desarrollo Integral de Bahía Culebra, o mejor conocido como Proyecto del Golfo de Papagayo,que al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 75 de la propia Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, se mantienen bajo la administración del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo; las Playas de Doña Ana (cerca de Puntarenas) y Playa Bonita (en Puerto Limón), también están bajo la administración del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo; los terrenos que se trasladaron mediante inciso b) del artículo 41 de la Ley número 5337, de 27 de agosto de 1973 a la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), que comprenden una faja de terreno de diez kilómetros desde el mar hacia el interior, y que se extiende desde el Puerto de Moín hasta la Barra del Colorado, y son tierras que forman parte del patrimonio de la indicada institución; la zona de Mata Limón, que comprende la zona portuaria de Puerto Caldera, al sujetarse a la Ley número 5582, de 11 de octubre de 1974, y al Decreto Ejecutivo número 11494-T, de 19 de mayo de 1980, en la que se designa como el administrador de esta zona al Ministerio e Obras Públicas y Transportes, a través de la Dirección de Obras Portuarias; y la Playa Tivives, por cuanto su urbanización fue arrendada sobre la base de un contrato con el Estado, antes de la promulgación de la Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, la Cooperativa Tivives, R.L., y en virtud del artículo 80 de la Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, se excepciona de la aplicación a esta playa, el artículo 20 de la Ley, referente al uso y ocupación de la zona pública. De manera que es, ante la Municipalidad respectiva adonde deben gestionarse los permisos de uso y aprovechamiento (concesiones) de la zona restringida de la marítimo terrestre, siendo el Concejo el encargado de la decisión; para el visto bueno final, dependiendo de la zona de que se trate, ante el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, si se trata de una zona declarada como turística, o ante el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, si no es zona turística, y la Asamblea Legislativa, tratándose de islas. Asimismo están autorizadas para cobrar los respectivos cánones sobre las concesiones otorgadas en esas zonas, adquierndo así, el carácter de administraciones tributarias, por la gestión de ese tributo. Finalmente se advierte que las funciones de fiscalización y administración encomendados por ley expresa a las municipalidades, en modo alguno pueden entenderse o interpretarse como expresión de un derecho de propiedad o posesión sobre esta franja de tierra, precisamente en virtud de la demanialidad de este bien.

V.- DE LA ILEGALIDAD DEL ACUERDO IMPUGNADO.- Es precisamente por omisión en el cumplimiento de la función de administración de la zona marítimo terrestre, encomendada por mandato legal a las municipalidades, que la decisión apelada resulta inconforme con el ordenamiento jurídico. Así, el Concejo se extralimitó en sus competencias, pero no en la forma considedara por los apelantes, por cuanto, en su condición de administrador de un bien de dominio público, no puede delegar en los particulares (administrados), y en este caso, directamente interesados, no solo la decisión del asunto, sino lo más grave, el reparto de un bien demanial. En este sentido, lo que corresponde es resolver ambas solicitudes de concesión, conforme a los parámetros establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico, recordando inclusive, que la decisión final no se trata de un acto reglado, precisamente en atención al carácter del bien de que se trata (de dominio público), de manera que, tanto por motivos de legalidad, como de oportunidad y conveniencia pueden ser rechazadas las soluciones; pero se insiste, siendo una decisión que atañe, única y exclusivamente al órgano deliberativo, conforme a la competencia legalmente asignada. En este sentido se recuerda que la Administración no está obligada a otorgar la concesión en la forma y condiciones pedidas por el gestionante, en tanto, es precisamente en el ejercicio de la función fiscalizadora que debe valorar las solicitudes, para adoptar la que mejor se adapte, a las regulaciones, no sólo de la Ley que rige este bien, sino de las de carácter ambiental y urbano, así como también, según se indicó, es posible utilizar criterios discrecionales, esto es, de oportunidad y conveniencia. Por ello, el acto impugnado es nulo, al implicar o traducirse en la renuncia del ejercicio de potestades de imperio, lo que no es posible al tenor del artículo 66 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Procede, en consecuencia, la remisión del expediente, para que el Concejo continue el trámite de las solicitudes de los señores Nombre101357 y Nombre101356 , y resuelva conforme a derecho.

POR TANTO

Se anula el acuerdo impugnado. Devuélvase el expediente para que continúe con los trámites.

Hubert Fernández Argüello Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Isaac Amador Hernández Recurso de apelación. Jerarquía impropia municipal.

Nombre101357 y Nombre101356 contra Municipalidad de Parrita