Annulment of ONS acts rejecting plant variety registration based on pre-existing regulationsNulidad de actos de la ONS por rechazar solicitud de inscripción varietal amparada en normativa preexistente

**TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO,** **II Circuito Judicial de San José, Dirección04** **Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33** ** Correo Electrónico ...01** ________________________________________________________________________ **EXPEDIENTE:** 11-004342-1027-CA **PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO** **ACTOR:** SEMILLAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO S.A. **DEMANDADOS:** EL ESTADO Y LA OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS **Nº 180 -2012-VI** **TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN SEXTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144 . Goicoechea, at sixteen hundred hours on the seventh of September of two thousand twelve.-** Proceso de conocimiento declarado de puro derecho, filed by Nombre12750 , of legal age, married, attorney, resident of San José, identity card number CED16309, in his capacity as special judicial proxy of the company SEMILLAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal identification number CED112712, against the ESTADO, represented by the Procuradora A Licda. LAURA ARAYA ROJAS, of legal age, single, attorney, resident of Moravia, identity card number CED483, and the OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS (ONS), represented by Nombre71391 , of legal age, married, agronomist, resident of San Francisco de Dos Ríos, identity card number CED112713.

**RESULTANDO:** 1.- The claims of the plaintiff -which were adjusted during the preliminary hearing held at eight forty-five hours on the twenty-eighth of March of two thousand twelve- are for the judgment to: “... 1) Declare the absolute nullity of agreement two, article six, of session number 609 of the fifteenth of December of two thousand ten, of the Junta Directiva of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas; agreement two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of the twenty-eighth of September of two thousand eleven of the Junta Directiva of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas; Official letter ONS 332-2010 of the twentieth of December of two thousand ten, issued by the Director Ejecutivo of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, as well as all related acts. 2) Order the defendant parties in the abstract to pay the damages (daños y perjuicios) that have been caused to my represented party due to administrative inactivity, in accordance with the second paragraph, subsection j) of article 42 in relation to subsection m) of numeral 122 of the CPCA.” (folios 18 and 117 of the judicial file, and digital recording of the preliminary hearing). Likewise, it requested that the provisions of article 69 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo be applied.

2.- The representative of the OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS answered the complaint negatively. He requested that the judgment declare the filed complaint without merit in all its aspects and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both costs (costas). Likewise, he indicated that he opposed the application of the provisions of article 69 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since he considered it relevant to call the representative of the plaintiff company to a deposition (confesión) (folios 83 to 89 of the judicial file).

3.- The representative of the ESTADO answered the complaint negatively and filed the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho). She requested that the judgment dismiss the proceeding and order the plaintiff to pay both costs, as well as interest on them from the finality of the judgment until their effective payment. Likewise, she indicated that in accordance with the provisions of article 70, subsection 2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the conciliation hearing should be dispensed with. Finally, she pointed out that she does not oppose the request posed by the plaintiff so that this matter proceeds directly to judgment (fallo directo) (folios 90 to 98 of the judicial file).

4.- By an order (auto) issued at nine thirty-eight hours on the nineteenth of January of two thousand twelve (folio 217 of the judicial file), the Procedural Judge (Jueza Tramitadora) resolved: a) To accept the answers to the complaint filed in time and form by the Estado and the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, and the defense of lack of right as filed; b) To grant a hearing for counter-evidence (contraprueba) to the plaintiff for a period of three days; c) To summon the parties to a preliminary hearing -given that the representative of the Estado waived conciliation-, a proceeding scheduled for eight forty-five hours on the twenty-eighth of March of two thousand twelve.

5.- The preliminary hearing was held at eight forty-five hours on the twenty-eighth of March of two thousand twelve, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is attached to the file in a special bundle. During this hearing, the Procedural Judge adjusted the claims posited by the plaintiff, in the terms indicated in the first resultando of this judgment; established the disputed and undisputed facts, transcendental for the case and therefore, subject to proof; partially admitted the documentary evidence offered by the parties and rejected the offering of deposition and expert evidence offered by the Oficina Nacional de Semillas. Consequently, as there was no testimonial, deposition, or expert evidence to be taken and in accordance with the provisions of article 98.2 of the same Code, she declared this matter of pure right (puro derecho) and the parties rendered their conclusions orally (see folios 118 and 120 judicial file and digital recording of the preliminary hearing).

6.- This matter was referred to the Reporting Judge (Jueza Ponente) of the Sexta Sección of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo on the seventeenth of August of two thousand twelve (folio 120 verso of the judicial file). In the proceedings before this Tribunal, no nullities have been observed that must be corrected or that generate defenselessness (indefensión), and the judgment is issued within the period established in articles 98, subsection 2) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, in relation to subsection 4) of article 82 of the Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio of this Jurisdiction.- Judge Álvarez Molina drafts, with the affirmative vote of Judge Abarca Gómez and Judge Conejo Cantillo; and, **CONSIDERANDO:** **Io.- PROVEN FACTS:** The following facts that are relevant to this proceeding are deemed duly accredited: 1) That on the eighteenth of March of two thousand eight, the petition (gestión) raised by the plaintiff company was received at the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, according to which, “...By virtue that the Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales was recently approved in second debate and will soon be published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta, we hereby submit the formal application for the registration of the variety Palmar 18 in the Registro de Variedades Protegidas. Taking as a reference the document issued by the Oficina Nacional de Semillas called “Certificado de Registro de Variedades Comerciales” (AR-023-105), it is recorded that the variety Palmar 18 was registered on June 4, 2007. With what is indicated in the document it is validated that the variety Palmar 18 has been in the national market for less than a year, therefore it meets the “novelty” requirement established in the Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales. In advance we thank you for your valuable collaboration to endorse the registration procedure and we request that you indicate the procedure to follow in order to culminate the registration process...” (folio 01 of the administrative file); 2) That the Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales (number 8631), was published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 56 of the nineteenth of March of two thousand eight and entered into force on that same date (see digital file of Law 8631 on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij); 3) That by official letter number D.E.066-08 of the twenty-first of March of two thousand eight, the Director Ejecutivo of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, informed the Manager of the defendant company that: “...I acknowledge receipt of your official letter GG-SEN-007-08, of March 11, 2008, by which you submit a formal application for the registration of the rice variety Palmar 18, in the Registro de Variedades Protegidas. In this regard, I inform you that indeed the Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales was recently approved by the Asamblea Legislativa on February 28 of the present year and published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta Nº 56 on the past 19th of March. Regarding your application, I must refer to article 7 of the Law which establishes that the general procedures and rules for the presentation, processing, technical examination and resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right, among others, shall be established by regulation (reglamentariamente). We are currently dedicated to drafting a proposed Reglamento to this Law for its decree by the Poder Ejecutivo, which is the body responsible for its approval, and we hope in the short term to be able to indicate to you the procedures and requirements that applications must meet, both in formal-administrative aspects and in technical conditions. For the moment, in order to advance in the fulfillment of requirements, I am attaching the format used by UPOV for the description of rice varieties...” (folio 02 of the administrative file); 4) That the Reglamento a la Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales (Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677), was published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 6 of the eleventh of January of two thousand ten and entered into force on that same date (see digital file of Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677 on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij); 5) That by official letter number ONS 065-2010 DT of the 30th of November of two thousand ten, an official of the Programa de Semilla del Arroz of the ONC, informed –as relevant- the plaintiff company that “…in the event that the date of receipt of the letter GG-SEN-007-08 can be granted as the filing date of an application for protection of the breeder's rights regarding the variety Palmar 18, which is under legal consultation, we would not have affected the rights of Nombre143465 with the acceptance of the application of (…), since in any case your represented party could charge usage rights for the variety a posteriori. In the event of a resolution granting breeder's rights in favor of Nombre143465, we will gladly be informing you of the quantity of seeds that will be certified to Mr. (…)” (folios 04 and 05 of the administrative file); 6) That by official letter number SEN-GG-036-10 of the thirtieth of November of two thousand ten, received at the Oficina Nacional de Semillas on the second of December of two thousand ten, the plaintiff company requested “...we beg that my represented party be summoned to present the necessary requirements in order to proceed with the registration procedure for the rice variety Palmar 18 in the Registro de Variedades Protegidas kept for that purpose by OFINASE...” (folios 06 and 07 of the administrative file); 7) That by official letter number ONS 310-10 D.E. of the first of December of two thousand eleven, the Director Ejecutivo of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas posed a consultation to the Legal Advisor of that body, in the sense that: “...a) Can the date of receipt of the letter GG-SEN-007-08 be legally recognized as the filing date of the application? b) Can the date of inscription of the variety in the Commercial Registry be taken as a reference to consider the condition of novelty? (…) c) … Could the date on which the ONS received the letter GG-SEN-007-08 be recognized as the day of filing the protection application that the interested company would be filing and submitting in the coming days, arguing that once Law 8631 was approved in second legislative debate, the application has legal backing and should have been attended to, despite the fact that the Law had not yet been published (which occurred until March 19, 2008) and that of course no Reglamento to the Law existed?...” (folios 08 and 09 of the administrative file); 8) That by written communication dated December 13, two thousand ten, received at the ONS on December 17 of the same year, the Legal Advisor discharged the consultation posed by the Director Ejecutivo of the ONS, in the sense that: “…1) The note G-SEN-007-08 cannot be legally recognized as the filing of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title. 2) The date of inscription of the variety in the Registro Comercial cannot be taken as a reference to consider novelty. 3) As the above assumptions are not accepted as valid, the consideration of retroacting the facts in time to proceed with an inscription becomes irrelevant…”. This, because in general terms she considered: “…In light of these provisions, emanating from the same legislative act, it can be appreciated that the Oficina Nacional de Semillas was unable to grant a plant breeder's right without the specific promulgation of the Reglamento to the law (…) The Reglamento to the law was published only on January 11, 2010, so it was only until that date that the Oficina Nacional de Semillas was enabled to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the law and the Reglamento itself…” (folios 10 to 12 of the administrative file); 9) That by agreement 2, article 6, adopted in session 609 held on the fifteenth of December of two thousand ten, the Junta Directiva of the ONS ordered: “…The criterion and conclusion of the legal advisory of this Office is accepted regarding the application of the company SENUMISA, in the sense that: 1) The note G-SEN-007-08 cannot be legally recognized as the filing of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title. 2) The date of inscription of the variety in the Registro Comercial cannot be taken as a reference to consider novelty. 3) As the above assumptions are not accepted as valid, the consideration of retroacting the facts in time to proceed with an inscription becomes irrelevant. The Administration is instructed to communicate the resolution to the company Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A.…” (folio 15 of the administrative file); 10) That by official letter number ONS-332-2010 of the twentieth of December of two thousand ten, the Director Ejecutivo of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, communicated to the plaintiff company that “…I hereby respond to your official letter SEN-GG 036-10, regarding the application for protection of the variety Palmar 18 in favor of your represented party (…) We regret that, in this particular case and given the circumstances under which it was submitted, it is not feasible to process what was requested by your represented party (…) It should be noted that the Reglamento to the Law was published in the Diario Oficial only on January 11, 2010. So it is only until that date that the Office was enabled to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the Law and the Reglamento. Although the initial response note reflects a good disposition to attend to your application, at the time it was raised we could not proceed with the processing, since we did not have all the regulatory instruments required to formalize the application. Finally, I must indicate to you that, given the relevance of the case, this matter has been attended to within our Junta Directiva, which agreed to accept the criterion and conclusion of our legal advisory…” (folios 13 and 14 of the administrative file); 11) That by agreement 2, article 6, adopted in session 616 held on the twenty-eighth of September of two thousand eleven, the Junta Directiva of the ONS ordered: “…TO CLARIFY AGREEMENT TWO, ARTICLE SIX, MINUTES OF SESSION NUMBER SIX HUNDRED NINE OF THE JUNTA DIRECTIVA OF WEDNESDAY FIFTEENTH OF DECEMBER OF TWO THOUSAND TEN, the said agreement being held as supported by the legal arguments that appear in the opinion of the Legal Advisory that were accepted in that minute…”. This, because it was considered -in general terms- that: “…the opinion of the legal advisor on the point referring to the fact that the note initially presented by Nombre143465 cannot be legally recognized as the filing of an application to obtain a breeder's title, represents the legal basis and the reason for this position. That is, it responds to the legal and material impossibility of the administration to act at that moment for lack of law, since it was not in force at the time of presenting the note under reference number GG-SEN-007-08, as well as to the lack of regulatory normative support that would allow us to act within the channels of legality derived from articles 11 of the Constitución Política and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública…” (folios 67 to 74 of the judicial file); 12) That by certification issued on the twenty-seventh of March of two thousand twelve, the Head of the Departamento Técnico of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, certified that “…according to the files and records kept by this office, the Registro de Variedades Protegidas, was implemented as of the promulgation of Ley 8631 PROTECCIÓN DE LAS OBTENCIONES VEGETALES published in Gaceta 56 on the 19th day of March of 2008 and its Reglamento Decreto Nº 35677-MAG published in Gaceta Nº6 of the 11th of January of the year 2010. Consequently, prior to said dates, the System for the Registro de Variedades Protegidas had not been established…” (folio 115 of the judicial file).

**IIo.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING.** The plaintiff considers that in accordance with the provisions in articles 1, 8, 10, 15 subsections c) and d), and 20 subsections a) and b) of the Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley número 6289 of December 4, 1978); 9, 34 subsection a), 60 and 61 of the Reglamento to that Law, the Oficina Nacional de Semillas had clearly defined the scope and powers to make effective the Variety Protection and Breeder's Rights of New Plant Varieties; therefore, in its judgment, since 1978 it was its responsibility not only to open a Registro de Variedades Protegidas, in order to protect the rights of those who register new, created or discovered varieties, but also to establish the necessary requirements and procedure for that purpose. Due to the above, it considers that since 1978 it has a right to protect intellectual property in plant variety matters, which was reinforced as of March 19, two thousand eight, the effective date of the Ley para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley número 8631). That this right also finds support in the provisions of articles 47 of the Constitución Política, 1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Anexo 1 C of the WTO Agreement, approved by Costa Rica through Ley 7475, which entered into force on December 26, 1994); 77, 78 and 88 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; and the Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties, published in La Gaceta number 83 of April 30, two thousand eight. Due to the above, it considers that the challenged acts are contrary to the provisions of articles 131, 132 and 133 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, since in its judgment, it is substantially contrary to the legal system to reject the application raised since March 18, two thousand eight, for the purpose of registering Variety Palmar 18 in the Registro de Variedades Protegidas, under the argument that at the time of its filing before the ONS, not only had the Ley para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley número 8631) not entered into force, but also, the executive regulation (reglamento ejecutivo) to that law had not yet been issued, in which not only the requirements but also the procedure to apply should have been established, in order to determine the appropriateness or not of the applications filed for the protection of plant varieties. In that sense, it maintains that the ONS should have taken into account that administrative regulations must be interpreted in the way that best guarantees the realization of the public purpose they are aimed at, so that if one day after its represented party filed its application for registration of Variety Palmar 18, there already existed a regulation declaring the activity of variety generation to be of national interest and another regulation establishing its competence to receive, process and resolve applications, then it should have considered that waiting for a Reglamento to exist to determine whether or not the granting of a registration of this kind proceeded, in no way satisfied the public purpose of benefiting agricultural development and competitiveness, therefore, it considers that in the absence of said Reglamento it should have integrated the existing regulations at the time of filing the application, or else, rectify the procedure with the Reglamento that had already been issued. Due to the above, it considers it improper that three years after the application was filed for the purpose of registering the variety Palmar 18 in the Registro de Variedades Protegidas, the ONS decided to reject it under the argument that at the time of its filing it did not have the regulatory tools to process it, despite the fact that in its judgment, the right to obtain protection for the breeder of a plant variety, provided for in the Constitución Política, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; the Ley de Biodiversidad and the Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties, is of immediate application and does not require a law to produce its effects. In addition to the above, it considers it improper that its application is rejected under the argument that at the time of its filing the Reglamento had not yet been issued that according to article 7 of Law 8631 had to be issued to regulate the general procedures and rules for the presentation, processing and resolution of applications for the granting of breeder's rights, when the Poder Ejecutivo delayed almost two years in issuing the executive regulation to Law 8631, therefore, it claims it is improper that the negative consequences of that delay are attributed to its represented party, as constitutional jurisprudence has maintained in similar cases (judgment 1900-1463 of fourteen hours thirty minutes of October thirty, nineteen hundred and ninety). Consequently, it considers that the failures incurred by the ONS produced an unlawful injury (lesión antijurídica) both to the plaintiff company and to the public interest. For their part, the representatives of the Estado and the Oficina Nacional de Semillas maintain that: a) The motive (motivo) of the act is fully formed, since the factual antecedent is the premature filing of the application, whose recognition is sought in this matter. They highlight that the plaintiff formulated its petition prior to the publication of the Law in La Gaceta, a situation that in their judgment, shows that the normative body on which the plaintiff intends to base its right, had not yet taken effect. Due to the above, they consider that granting what the plaintiff requests would be contrary to the provisions of articles 11 and 129 of the Constitución Política, 7 of the Código Civil, since at the time of raising the petition, the norm on which it was based had not yet been born into legal life; b) They argue that Law 8631 itself imposed an additional limitation, since numeral 7 subjects all procedures, processing, examinations and resolutions in the matter of granting breeder's rights, to the regulatory norm (norma reglamentaria), a norm that did not exist at the time of filing the application. They consider that this circumstance denies any possibility for any dependency or instance of the ONS, through an interpretive or integrative avenue, to attribute to itself powers to establish the parameters aimed at obtaining protection in the matter, since there exists a clear regulatory reservation (reserva reglamentaria) given by the law. Likewise, they argue that the validity of a law begins with publication in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta, and therefore, its application and interpretation can occur after that moment and not before, as the plaintiff wrongly intends; c) They indicate that no affectation can derive for the plaintiff company from the time elapsed in issuing the Reglamento a la Ley 8631, since it formulated its petition prematurely and for that reason it was rejected. That is, they maintain that regardless of the moment when the regulatory body under analysis was issued, the petition that is the subject of litigation was going to be denied, and therefore, the reasonableness and proportionality of the period for issuing the Reglamento a la Ley 8631 cannot constitute a ground for nullity of the challenged acts, not only because that aspect is not and should not be discussed in this proceeding, but also because the aspects to be regulated required in-depth analysis and therefore, the time elapsed for issuing the Reglamento responds to the technical nature of the matter and the effective protection that must be provided to each natural or legal person who seeks the granting of a breeder's right; d) Finally, the representative of the Estado argues that the plaintiff omitted to indicate what the injuries it claims are and their quantification. Due to the above, she considers that she is in a total state of defenselessness (indefensión), as she is unaware of the type of injury, what it consists of and its quantification, a circumstance that entails the material impossibility of defense. However, she indicates that if it is considered that there is some injury that must be compensated, the ONS has its own budget and therefore, the imposition of the items to be paid should fall on it, as resolved by Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, in judgment number 1360-F-S1-2010 of ten hours twenty-five minutes of the eleventh of November of two thousand ten.

**IIIo.- ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETIES, PRIOR TO LEY # 8631 AND THE MECHANISMS FOR ITS PROTECTION PROVIDED IN LEY # 6289.** While it is true, according to paragraph 1 of article 129 of the Constitución Política, laws are obligatory and take effect from the day they designate and in the absence of that requirement, ten days after their publication in the Diario Oficial; it is also true that paragraph 2 of that same numeral establishes that no one may claim ignorance of the law. In that sense and contrary to what the representatives of the Estado and the Oficina Nacional de Semillas maintain, the recognition of the right to the protection of plant varieties does not originate with the entry into force on March 19, two thousand eight, of the Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (number 8631), but rather has its genesis in article 47 of the Constitución Política itself, which establishes “…Every author, inventor, producer or merchant shall temporarily enjoy the exclusive property of their work, invention, trademark or trade name, in accordance with the law…”. However, given that the constituent delegates to the legislator the regulation of that right, through the Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289), which entered into force on December 4, nineteen seventy-eight, it created the ONS as a body of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería with independence in its operational functioning and with its own legal personality in its administration, which shall be in charge of the promotion and protection, improvement, control, and use of high-quality seeds (article 1). For this purpose, the ONS must maintain –among other aspects- a registry of commercial varieties, with recommendations or restrictions on their use, as well as a registry of protected varieties; as well as establish the rules and controls for the production of breeders' rights of new varieties -articles 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d)-. To fulfill this last aspect, the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, through the Reglamento of Ley 6289, shall establish the conditions to be met to obtain seed producer titles, as well as their different categories, rights and obligations. Likewise, it shall regulate the commerce between producers, processors and merchants in general, to guarantee the quality of the seeds, for which purpose a registry shall be established that will authorize whoever registers to trade in seeds –articles 10, 20 subsections a) and b)-. In that sense, the Reglamento a la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Decreto Ejecutivo number 12907-A, which entered into force on September 21, 1981), established in articles 60 and 61 –respectively- that the ONS shall open a Registro de Variedades Protegidas where new, created or discovered varieties shall be registered; and that the registration in the Registro de Variedades Protegidas shall be made in accordance with the requirements established for that purpose by the Oficina Nacional de Semillas in its due time. This is because the ONS has the power to propose to the Poder Ejecutivo the modification of that Decreto Ejecutivo and the issuance of the decrees necessary for carrying out the functions imposed on it by the Law and the Reglamento itself (article 34 subsection 1).

Finally, Article 88 of that same Regulation defines protected varieties as those new plant varieties created or discovered and duly registered in the Register of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas), established for that purpose. It should be noted that through Article 1 of Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004, Articles 60 and 61 of the Regulation to the Law of the National Seeds Office (Reglamento a la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas) were modified—among others—thereby eliminating the rules referring to the obligation to regulate everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties (which was created in 1978 by Law 8269) and, consequently, the effective protection of the rights of breeders of protected varieties, which Law 6289 imposes on the ONS as one of its main functions, focusing solely on regulating the Register of Commercial Varieties (Registro de Variedades Comerciales) (see recitals 3 to 6 of Executive Decree number 31736, in the digital version of that regulation, on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij). At this point, it should be highlighted that not only the Law of the National Seeds Office (Law 6289) imposes on the State in general, and on the ONS in particular, the effective regulation of the protection rights of plant breeding achievements, but also the following norms: i) The Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law number 6867, which entered into force on April 25, 1983), establishes in Article 1, subsections 1 and 3, respectively, that "...1.- An invention is any creation of the human intellect, capable of being applied in industry, that meets the patentability conditions provided for in this law. It may be a product, a machine, a tool, or a manufacturing process and shall be protected by the invention patent (...) 3.- Plant breeding achievements shall have protection through a special law..."; ii) The Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, specifically Annex 1 C, called the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was approved by the Legislative Assembly through Law number 7475, which entered into force on December 26, 1994, in whose Article 1.1 it states that "Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement, provided that such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement. Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice." Likewise, it indicates that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations (Article 7). Finally, and what is of interest for the specific case, Article 8 establishes the principles that must govern domestic legislation aimed at the protection of intellectual property, in the sense that "...Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement." iii) The Biodiversity Law (Law number 7788, which entered into force on May 27, 1998), which establishes that the State recognizes the existence and validity of forms of knowledge and innovation and the need to protect them, through the use of appropriate legal mechanisms for each specific case (Article 77), which translate—among other forms and with the exceptions contemplated therein—into patents, trade secrets, plant breeder's rights, sui generis community intellectual rights, copyrights, farmers' rights (Article 78). This is because there is a public interest in guaranteeing the country and its inhabitants the right to be recipients of scientific-technical information and cooperation regarding biodiversity, as well as to have access to technology through appropriate transfer policies, including biotechnology and associated knowledge; for which reason, the State must facilitate access to relevant technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, without prejudice to intellectual or industrial property rights or sui generis collective intellectual rights (Article 88). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State and the National Seeds Office failed to fulfill the duty imposed by the Political Constitution; the TRIPS Agreement (approved by Law 7475); Laws 6289, 6867, and 7788; Executive Decree number 12907-A, related to regulating everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties, which was created in 1978 by Law 6289 and, therefore, the effective protection of the rights of breeders of protected varieties, which that Law imposes on the ONS as one of its main functions. This is so much the case that, by certification issued on March twenty-seventh, two thousand twelve, the Head of the Technical Department of the National Seeds Office, recorded that "...according to the files and records kept by this office, the Register of Protected Varieties was implemented as of the enactment of Law 8631 PROTECTION OF PLANT BREEDING ACHIEVEMENTS published in Gazette 56 on March 19, 2008, and its Regulation Decree No. 35677-MAG published in Gazette No. 6 on January 11, 2010. Consequently, prior to said dates, the System for the Register of Protected Varieties had not been established..." (folio 115 of the judicial file). Consequently, the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements was not only recognized in a general manner since the enactment of the 1949 Constitution (Article 47), and especially since 1978 with the entry into force of Law number 6289—Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b)—but in addition, said Law established in a general manner the mechanisms for protecting the same, through the creation of the Register of Protected Varieties, whose implementation was conditional upon the Executive Branch, by regulatory means and at the request of the ONS, establishing the requirements and the procedure to follow for that purpose, which was never done during the period between December 4, 1978 (the date of entry into force of Law 6289) and January 11, 2010 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, Executive Decree number 35677). Quite the contrary, since through Article 1 of Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004, Articles 60 and 61 of the Regulation to the Law of the National Seeds Office were modified—among others—thereby eliminating the rules referring to the obligation to regulate, via regulations, everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties (which was created in 1978 by Law 6289), focusing solely on regulating the Register of Commercial Varieties (see recitals 3 to 6 of Executive Decree number 31736, in the digital version of that regulation, on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij), which is manifestly and evidently contrary to the provisions of the very law it regulates. This, despite the fact that even since December twenty-sixth, 1994, the Costa Rican State had approved through Law 7475 the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, specifically Annex 1 C, called the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and therefore, had committed internationally, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1.1, 7, and 8.1 of TRIPS, to formulate and/or modify its laws and regulations, in order to effectively protect and enforce intellectual property rights, in accordance with the provisions of said Agreement (Article 7, paragraph 1 and Article 48 of the Political Constitution). Finally, it is necessary to highlight that the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements did not repeal the provisions contained in Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seeds Office, related to the creation and regulation of the Register of Protected Varieties and, therefore, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties. For all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that it is not only substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 7, paragraph 1, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129, paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1.1, 7, and 8.1 of TRIPS (Law 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seeds Office (Law 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law 6867); 77, 78, and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Law 7788); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Executive Decree number 12907-A (Articles 60 and 61 before the reform by Article 1 of Executive Decree 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); but also contrary to the principles of logic and justice (Article 16, subsection 1 of the General Law of Public Administration), for the defendants to argue that prior to the entry into force of both the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements (Law number 8631 of March 19, 2008) and the Regulation to that Law (Executive Decree number 35677-MAG of January 11, 2010), it was not possible to receive applications seeking the recognition of protection rights for plant breeding achievements, because there was no norm that protected them, nor provisions that regulated the requirements and the procedure to follow for their possible registration in the Register of Protected Varieties, not only because the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements was recognized in a general manner since the enactment of the Political Constitution of 1949 (Article 47), and especially since 1978 with the entry into force of Law number 6289—Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b)—reaffirmed both in 1983 with the provisions of Article 1, subsections 1 and 3 of Law 6867, and in 1998 with Articles 77, 78, and 88 of the Biodiversity Law; but also because, in Law 6289 itself, the mechanisms for its protection were established in a general manner, through the creation of the Register of Protected Varieties, whose implementation was conditional upon the Executive Branch, by regulatory means and at the request of the ONS, establishing the requirements and the procedure to follow for that purpose, which was not done until January 11, 2010, with the entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, Executive Decree number 35677. Consequently, the defendants cannot validly transfer to the person requesting a declaration of breeder's rights, over a seed variety that they seek to have protected and registered in the respective register—the negative effects derived from the administrative inactivity they incurred from December 4, 1978 (the date of entry into force of Law 6289) until January 11, 2010 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, Executive Decree number 35677), by failing to regulate promptly, fully, and in accordance with the law, the mechanisms for protecting the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements provided for since 1978 by Law 6289 and the Regulation to that Law, under the argument that at the time they filed their petition, no law or regulation was in force that protected the right they claim to have, as will be analyzed next in the following recital.

I Vo.- REGARDING THE DEFECTS OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF THE CHALLENGED FORMAL ACTIONS. This Tribunal considers that agreement number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seeds Office; Official Communication ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seeds Office, suffer from defects of absolute nullity, for being substantially contrary to the legal system, for the reasons set forth below: 1) Regarding the motive. This Tribunal considers that the motive sustaining the challenged acts is illegitimate, since it is based on "...the legal and material impossibility of the administration to act at that time due to the lack of law, since it was not in force at the time of filing the note under consecutive GG-SEN-007-08, as well as the lack of regulatory normative support that would allow us to act within the channels of legality derived from Articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration..." (folios 67 to 74 of the judicial file; 13, 14, and 15 of the administrative file). In that sense, as was analyzed in recital III of this judgment, it is substantially contrary to the legal system for the defendants to argue that prior to the entry into force of both the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements (Law number 8631 of March 19, 2008) and the Regulation to that Law (Executive Decree number 35677-MAG of January 11, 2010), it was not possible to receive applications seeking the recognition of protection rights for plant breeding achievements, because there was no norm that protected them, nor provisions that regulated the requirements and the procedure to follow for their possible registration in the Register of Protected Varieties, when, as explained supra, such regulations did exist. 2) In relation to the content. This Tribunal considers that the content sustaining the challenged acts is not licit, since it is based on "...In light of these provisions, emanating from the same legislative act, it can be seen that the National Seeds Office was unable to grant a plant breeder's right without the specific enactment of the regulation to the law (...) The Regulation to the law was published until January 11, 2010, so that until that date the National Seeds Office was enabled to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the law and the regulation itself..." (folios 10 to 14 of the administrative file). In the first instance, while it is true that Article 7 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements (Law 8631) establishes that "...The procedures and general rules for the filing, publication of information on applications, grants of breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations, the processing, the technical examination, and the resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right, shall be established by regulation. // The procedures and rules developed by regulation must include, as a minimum, the requirements that applications for obtaining the plant breeding title must meet, the obligation to publish a notice of the applications filed, the opportunity for third parties to file oppositions to the applications filed, prior to their granting, and the competent body for the resolution of the procedure. Information on granted breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations shall also be published."; this circumstance does not imply that interested parties seeking a declaration of breeder's rights, over a seed variety they seek to have protected and registered in the respective register, could not file the corresponding application before the enactment of Law 8631, for the reasons already indicated in the preceding section; or, in the period between the date of entry into force of Law 8631 (March 19, 2008) and the date on which the Regulation to Law 8631 was published and entered into force (January 11, 2010). This is because, since December 4, 1978, the National Seeds Office (Ofinase) is the competent body to receive, process, and resolve applications for registration both in the Register of Commercial Varieties and in the Register of Protected Varieties and, in this latter case, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Law 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the reform introduced by Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); which is reaffirmed in Article 5 of Law 8631 and Article 4 of Executive Decree 35677. Consequently, the fact that before the enactment of Law 8631 or during the period between the date of entry into force of Law 8631 (March 19, 2008) and the date on which the Regulation to Law 8631 was published and entered into force (January 11, 2010), the regulation that would define the procedures and general rules for the filing, publication of information on applications, grants of breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations, the processing, the technical examination, and the resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right had not been issued, did not prevent the filing of applications seeking the protection of a plant variety through its registration in the Register of Protected Varieties, whose effective processing would remain pending the issuance of the respective regulatory norms. To maintain the contrary is contrary to the principles of logic and justice and to the provisions of Articles 7, paragraph 1, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129, paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1.1, 7, and 8.1 of TRIPS (Law 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seeds Office (Law 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law 6867); 77, 78, and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Law 7788), not only because it implies transferring, as already stated, to the person requesting a declaration of breeder's rights over a seed variety they seek to have protected and registered in the respective register—the negative effects derived from the administrative inactivity they incurred from December 4, 1978 (the date of entry into force of Law 6289) until January 11, 2010 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, Executive Decree number 35677), by failing to regulate promptly, fully, and in accordance with the law, the mechanisms for protecting the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements provided for since 1978 by Law 6289 and the Regulation to that Law, reaffirmed by Law 8631 and Executive Decree number 35677, under the argument that at the time they filed their petition, no law or regulation was in force that protected the right they claim to have (folio 1 of the administrative file); but also, because legally it is their obligation to receive them in order to give them the respective processing, even if this was conditional upon the issuance of the executive regulation, since the ONS is the competent body to receive, process, and resolve them, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Law 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the reform introduced by Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Law 8631, and 4 of Executive Decree 35677. Consequently, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 288, subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, March 18, two thousand eight, is maintained as the filing date before the National Seeds Office of the application filed by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of the Variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, as the National Seeds Office itself had already considered in official communication number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight, by informing the representative of the plaintiff company that "...I acknowledge receipt of your communication GG-SEN-007-08, of March 11, 2008, by which you formally file an application for the registration of the rice variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties..." (folio 02 of the administrative file). In that sense and as a second aspect to analyze, while it is true that it was not possible to apply, in the case of plant variety achievements, the procedural rules contained in Articles 6 to 15 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law 6867), which regulate the procedure to follow when seeking to patent an invention, since the nature of the requirements for granting an invention patent and its subsequent registration in the register (Article 6 of Law 6867) are different from those required to obtain the protection of a plant variety (Article 7 of Executive Decree 35677), so much so that subsection 3 of Article 1 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models itself establishes that "...Plant breeding achievements shall have protection through a special law..."; it is also true that the National Seeds Office, in application of the provisions of Articles 39, 41, and 47 of the Political Constitution; 221, subsection 1) and 287 of the General Law of Public Administration, should have requested the plaintiff company, once the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements (Executive Decree 35677) entered into force, to complete or correct it within a period of thirty business days, in accordance with the requirements provided for in Articles 7 to 11 of Executive Decree 35677, in order to establish—in the first instance—the formal examination of the filed petition. This is because the procedure for processing and resolving the application filed by the plaintiff company on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, to register the Variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, was paralyzed due to causes attributable to the defendants, who delayed from December 4, 1978 (the date of entry into force of Law 6289) until January 11, 2010 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, Executive Decree number 35677), in regulating the mechanisms for protecting the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements provided for since 1978 by Law 6289 and the Regulation to that Law. So much so that the plaintiff company itself, in the application filed on March 18, two thousand eight, aware that its application was conditional upon the regulation of the procedure and the establishment of the requirements through that means, indicated "...We thank you in advance for your valuable collaboration in endorsing the registration process and we request that you indicate the procedure to follow in order to complete the registration process..." (folio 01 of the administrative file). It should be noted at this point that by official communication number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight, the Executive Director of the National Seeds Office himself informed the Manager of the plaintiff company that: "...we hope in the short term to be able to inform you of the procedures and requirements that applications must meet, both in formal-administrative aspects and in technical conditions. At this moment, in order to advance in the fulfillment of requirements, I am enclosing the format used by UPOV for the description of rice varieties..." (folio 02 of the administrative file). This Tribunal considers that, for the reasons stated, it is contrary to the principles of good faith and legitimate expectations that two years and almost nine months after the Executive Director of the ONS issued said official communication, the Board of Directors of the National Seeds Office denied the plaintiff company's application for registration of the Variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, under the argument that "...Note G-SEN-007-08 cannot be legally recognized as the filing of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title (...) Since the foregoing assumptions are not accepted as valid, the consideration of retroacting the facts in time to proceed with a registration becomes irrelevant...", given that—it is reiterated—in application of the provisions of Articles 39, 41, and 47 of the Political Constitution; 221, subsection 1) and 287 of the General Law of Public Administration, it should have requested the plaintiff company, once the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements (Executive Decree 35677) entered into force, to complete or correct the filed application within a period of thirty business days, in accordance with the requirements provided for in Articles 7 to 11 of Executive Decree 35677, in order to establish—in the first instance—the formal examination of the filed petition. 3) Regarding the purpose. It should be remembered that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d) of the Law for the Creation of the Seeds Office; 7 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); 88 of the Biodiversity Law, and 3 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, there is a public interest in guaranteeing the country and its inhabitants the right to be recipients of scientific-technical information and cooperation regarding biodiversity, as well as to have access to technology through appropriate transfer policies, including biotechnology and associated knowledge; for which reason, the State must facilitate access to relevant technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, specifically regarding the activity of generating varieties by natural and legal persons, public or private, for the benefits this derives for national agricultural development and competitiveness, without prejudice to intellectual or industrial property rights or sui generis collective intellectual rights. In that sense, the challenged acts are contrary to the main purposes provided for by the legal system, aimed at protecting the rights of breeders of plant varieties, safeguarding the right of use by small and medium farmers, by illegitimately and unjustifiably rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff company seeking the registration of the variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties. 4) Corollary.

Based on everything stated, this Court finds that: i) Agreements number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas); and Official Communication ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, suffer from defects of absolute nullity, as they are substantially contrary to the legal system, specifically to the provisions of articles 7 paragraph 1, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS (Ley 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the National Seed Office Law (Ley 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Ley 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley 7788); 11, 16 subsection 1), 131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, 221 subsection 1), 287 and 288 subsection 1) of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 5, 7 and 12 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales, Ley 8631); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Executive Decree number 12907-A (numerals 60 and 61 before the reform by article 1 of Executive Decree 31736, which took effect on March 29, 2004); 4, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG and the principles of justice, logic, good faith, and legitimate expectations (confianza legítima); ii) In accordance with the provisions of numerals 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Ley 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Ley 6289 (both in its version prior and subsequent to the reform introduced by Executive Decree number 31736, which took effect on March 29, 2004); 5 of Ley 8631 and 4 of Executive Decree 35677-MAG; 288 subsection 1) of the General Public Administration Law, March 18, two thousand eight is maintained as the filing date before the National Seed Office of the application submitted by the plaintiff company, aimed at the registration of Variety Palmar 18 in the Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas), just as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official communication number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight; iii) Consequently and according to articles 7 and 12 of Ley 8631, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), and 287 subsection 1) of the General Public Administration Law, the National Seed Office is ordered to begin processing the application submitted by the plaintiff company on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, in accordance with the procedure established in articles 11 to 24 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), in order to resolve what is legally appropriate.

Vo.- REGARDING THE ABSTRACT CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. While it is true that subsection m, sub-subsection iii of article 122 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) establishes the possibility for the Court to award damages (daños y perjuicios) in the abstract, when their existence and amount are not established, provided they are a consequence of the administrative conduct or legal relationship that is the subject of the lawsuit; it is also true that this does not have the power to nullify the obligation established in article 58 subsection 1.e) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, regarding that when damages are accessorily claimed—as in this case—the reason that originates them, what they consist of, and a prudential estimate must be specified. In this specific case, the plaintiff company limited itself to indicating that the damages it claims in the abstract derive from the challenged administrative inaction (folio 18 of the judicial file); however, it did not indicate what they consist of, nor did it estimate them in a prudential manner, a circumstance which, as the State's representative indicates, places the defendants in a state of defenselessness, since—in principle—the omission in determining these aspects prevents establishing whether the alleged existence and amount of the claimed damages are or are not a consequence of the conduct that is the subject of the lawsuit. Now then, it is necessary to clarify that contrary to what the plaintiff company asserts, the subject matter of the proceeding consists essentially of the formal acts (conductas formales) issued by the ONS and not an administrative inaction in the strict sense, since the ONS based the rejection of the application submitted on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, on an alleged absence of legal norms that, in the first instance, supported the request made by the plaintiff company, and secondly, on the non-existence of a regulation that would govern the procedure and requirements for attending to its application. Now then, and contrary to what the plaintiff company asserts, it is not evident from the evidence presented in the file that the damages whose abstract award it seeks are a consequence of the administrative conduct that is the subject of the proceeding—an essential requirement for an abstract award—since through official communication number ONS 065-2010 DT of November 30, two thousand ten, an official from the Rice Seed Program of the ON S communicated—in what is relevant—to the plaintiff company that “…in the event that the receipt date of letter GG-SEN-007-08 can be granted as the date of submission of an application for the protection of the breeder's rights regarding the variety Palmar 18, which is under legal consultation, we would not have affected the rights of Nombre143465 by accepting the application of (…), since in any case your represented party could collect usage rights for the variety a posteriori. In the event of a resolution granting breeder's rights in favor of Nombre143465, we will gladly be communicating to you the quantity of seeds that will be certified to Mr. (…)” (folios 04 and 05 of the administrative file). This is because, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1 and 23 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights, ".. d oes not harm the breeder's right, one who reserves and sows on their own holding, within reasonable limits and subject to the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of the breeders, the product of the harvest that they have obtained from the cultivation, on their own holding, of a protected variety or of a variety covered by subsection c) of article 18 of t his Law. Excepted from this provision are varieties of fruit, ornamental, and forest species, when commercial purposes are pursued. ..". Consequently and based on everything stated, the claim seeking an abstract award for the payment of damages raised by the plaintiff is declared inadmissible.

VIo.- REGARDING THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES. This Court reaches the conclusion that the company Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. has sufficient active standing (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding in accordance with article 10 subsection a) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, since it is t o whom the challenged formal acts are directed. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the State and the National Seed Office, since as provided in article 12 subsection 2) of the cited Code, even though the National Seed Office, being the a uthor of the administrative conduct challenged by the plaintiff (see folios 18, 117 verso of the judicial file and the audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing), constitutes the primary party called to defend and support it when challenged, not only because it is the one who knows its basis or justification, but because the conduct that is the subject of the proceeding comes—in part—from the exercise of a power granted to the Seed Office, specifically that which finds support in the provisions of articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the National Seed Office Law (Ley 6289); 5 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley 8631); 4 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, in that it refers to being the competent body to receive, process, and resolve applications for registration in both the Registry of Commercial Varieties (Registro de Variedades Comerciales) and the Registry of Protected Varieties, and in the latter case, for the protection of the breeder's rights for new varieties; it is also true that article 12 subsection 2 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code establishes that both the body with instrumental legal personality and the State or the entity to which it is attached must be sued, in order to guarantee a better defense of the administrative conduct. Moreover, the interest remains current, as long as the conduct that is the subject of the proceeding continues to have effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and require s a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds that the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho) raised by the State's representative must be partially accepted, only—as analyzed in Considerando V of this judgment—in that the claim seeking an abstract award against the defendants for the payment of damages is inadmissible. Consequently and in accordance with everything stated in Considerandos III and IV of this judgment, the defense of lack of right is rejected in its other aspects, and consequently, the lawsuit filed by Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. against the State and the National Seed Office is declared partially admissible, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in what is not expressly indicated: i) The absolute nullity is declared of agreements number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office; and Official Communication ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, as they are substantially contrary to the legal system, specifically to the provisions of articles 7 paragraph 1, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS (Ley 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the National Seed Office Law (Ley 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Ley 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley 7788); 11, 16 subsection 1), 131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, 221 subsection 1), 287 and 288 subsection 1) of the General Public Administration Law; 5, 7 and 12 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley 8631); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Executive Decree number 12907-A (numerals 60 and 61 before the reform by article 1 of Executive Decree 31736, which took effect on March 29, 2004); 4, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG and the principles of justice, logic, good faith, and legitimate expectations; ii) In accordance with the provisions of numerals 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Ley 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Ley 6289 (both in its version prior and subsequent to the reform introduced by Executive Decree number 31736, which took effect on March 29, 2004); 5 of Ley 8631 and 4 of Executive Decree 35677-MAG; 288 subsection 1) of the General Public Administration Law, March 18, two thousand eight is maintained as the filing date before the National Seed Office of the application submitted by the plaintiff company, aimed at the registration of Variety Palmar 18 in the Registry of Protected Varieties, just as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official communication number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight; iii) Consequently and according to articles 7 and 12 of Ley 8631, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), and 287 subsection 1) of the General Public Administration Law, the National Seed Office is ordered to begin processing the application submitted by the plaintiff company on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, in accordance with the procedure established in articles 11 to 24 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), in order to resolve what is legally appropriate; iv) The claim seeking an abstract award for the payment of damages raised by the plaintiff is declared inadmissible.

VIIo.- REGARDING COSTS. In accordance with numeral 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, procedural and personal costs (costas) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party for the fact of being so. The exemption from this award is only viable when there was, in the Court's judgment, sufficient cause to litigate or when the judgment is issued based on evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the case at hand, this collegiate body considers that there are grounds to apply the exception established by the regulation and to break the principle of awarding costs against the loser, since to the extent that the defense of lack of right was partially accepted, only in that the claim related to the abstract award for the payment of damages raised by the plaintiff is declared inadmissible; such a circumstance allows both parties to be classified as litigants in good faith and with sufficient cause to litigate.

THEREFORE (POR TANTO).

The defense of lack of right filed by the State is accepted, only regarding the claim seeking an abstract award for the payment of damages. Consequently, the defense of lack of right is rejected in its other aspects, and the lawsuit filed by Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. against the State and the National Seed Office is declared partially admissible, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in what is not expressly indicated: 1) The absolute nullity is declared of agreements number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office; and Official Communication ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, as they are substantially contrary to the legal system; 2) March 18, two thousand eight is maintained as the filing date before the National Seed Office of the application submitted by the plaintiff company, aimed at the registration of Variety Palmar 18 in the Registry of Protected Varieties, just as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official communication number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight; 3) T he National Seed Office is ordered to begin processing the application submitted by the plaintiff company on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, in accordance with the procedure established in articles 11 to 24 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), in order to resolve what is legally appropriate; 4) This matter is resolved without a special award of costs (condenatoria en costas).

Marianella Álvarez Molina Cynthia Abarca Gómez José Martín Conejo Cantillo FILE (EXPEDIENTE): 11-004342-1027-CA PROCEEDING OF COGNITION DECLARED PURELY OF LAW (PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO) PLAINTIFF (ACTOR): SEMILLAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO S.A.

DEFENDANT (DEMANDADO): THE STATE AND THE NATIONAL SEED OFFICE (OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS) Likewise, it requested the application of the provisions of Article 69 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

2.- The representative of the OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS answered the complaint negatively. It requested that the judgment declare the filed complaint without merit in all its aspects and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both sets of costs. Likewise, it indicated that it opposed the application of the provisions of Article 69 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since it considered it relevant to call the representative of the plaintiff company to confession (folios 83 to 89 of the judicial file).

3.- The representative of the ESTADO answered the complaint negatively and filed the defense of lack of right. She requested that the judgment declare the proceeding without merit and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both sets of costs, as well as interest on these from the finality of the judgment and until their effective payment. Likewise, she indicated that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 70, subsection 2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the conciliation hearing be dispensed with. Finally, she noted that she did not oppose the request made by the plaintiff, so that this matter be submitted for direct ruling (folios 90 to 98 of the judicial file).

4.- That by order issued at nine hours thirty-eight minutes on January nineteenth, two thousand twelve (folio 217 of the judicial file), the Processing Judge resolved: a) To consider the complaint as having been answered in a timely and proper manner by the Estado and the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, and the defense of lack of right as having been filed; b) To grant a counter-evidence hearing to the plaintiff for a period of three days; c) To convene the parties to a preliminary hearing - given that the representative of the Estado waived conciliation -, a proceeding set for eight hours forty-five minutes on March twenty-eighth, two thousand twelve.

5.- That the preliminary hearing was held at eight hours forty-five minutes on March twenty-eighth, two thousand twelve, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special binder. That during this hearing, the Processing Judge adjusted the claims raised by the plaintiff, in the terms indicated in the first result of this judgment; established the disputed and undisputed facts, transcendent for the case and therefore, the subject of proof; partially admitted the documentary evidence offered by the parties and rejected the offer of confession and expert evidence offered by the Oficina Nacional de Semillas. Consequently, as there was no testimonial, confession, or expert evidence to be produced and in accordance with the provisions of Article 98.2 of the same Code, she declared this matter to be one of pure law and the parties orally presented their conclusions (see folios 118 and 120 of the judicial file and digital backup of the preliminary hearing).

6.- That this matter was referred to the Reporting Judge of the Sixth Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, on August seventeenth, two thousand twelve (folio 120 verso of the judicial file). In the proceedings before this Tribunal, no nullities have been observed that must be corrected or that generate defenselessness, and the judgment is issued within the period established in Articles 98, subsection 2) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, in relation to subsection 4) of Article 82 of the Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio of this Jurisdiction.- Drafted by Judge Álvarez Molina, with the affirmative vote of Judge Abarca Gómez and Judge Conejo Cantillo; and,

CONSIDERING:

Io.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts, which are relevant to this process, are considered duly accredited: 1) That on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, the management filed by the plaintiff company was received at the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, according to which, "...By virtue of the fact that the Law on Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales) was recently approved in a second debate and will soon be published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, we hereby submit the formal application for the registration of the Palmar 18 variety in the Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas). Taking as a reference the document issued by the Oficina Nacional de Semillas called "Certificate of Registration of Commercial Varieties" (AR-023-105), it is recorded that the Palmar 18 variety was registered on June 4, 2007. Given what is indicated in the document, it is validated that the Palmar 18 variety has been on the national market for less than one year, therefore it meets the "novelty" requirement established in the Law on Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales). We thank you in advance for your valuable collaboration in endorsing the registration procedure and we request that you indicate the procedure to follow in order to complete the registration process..." (folio 01 of the administrative file); 2) That the Law on Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales, number 8631), was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 56 of March nineteenth, two thousand eight and entered into force on that same date (see digital file of Law 8631 on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij); 3) That by official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight, the Executive Director of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas informed the Manager of the plaintiff company that: "...I acknowledge receipt of your letter GG-SEN-007-08, of March 11, 2008, through which you submit a formal application for the registration of the rice variety Palmar 18 in the Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas). In this regard, I allow myself to inform you that indeed the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales) was recently approved by the Legislative Assembly on February 28 of this year and published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 56 on the past March 19. Regarding your application, I must refer to Article 7 of the Law which establishes that the procedures and general rules for the submission, processing, technical examination, and resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right, among others, shall be established by regulation. We are currently dedicated to drafting a proposal for a Regulation to this Law for its decree by the Executive Branch, which is the body responsible for its approval, and we hope in the short term to be able to indicate the procedures and requirements that applications must meet, both in formal - administrative aspects and in technical conditions. For the moment, in order to advance in the fulfillment of requirements, I am attaching the format used by UPOV for the description of rice varieties..." (folio 02 of the administrative file); 4) That the Regulation to the Law on Plant Breeders' Rights (Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677), was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 6 of January eleventh, two thousand ten and entered into force on that same date (see digital file of Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677 on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij); 5) That by official letter number ONS 065-2010 DT of November thirtieth, two thousand ten, an official of the Rice Seed Program of the ONC, informed – in what is relevant – the plaintiff company that “…in the event that the receipt date of letter GG-SEN-007-08 can be granted as the filing date of an application for protection of the breeder's rights regarding the Palmar 18 variety, which is under legal consultation, we would not have affected the rights of Nombre143465 with the acceptance of the application of (…), since in any case your represented party could charge subsequent usage rights for the variety. In the event of a resolution granting breeder's rights in favor of Nombre143465, we will gladly be communicating the quantity of seeds that will be certified to Mr. (…)” (folios 04 and 05 of the administrative file); 6) That by official letter number SEN-GG-036-10 of November thirtieth, two thousand ten, received at the Oficina Nacional de Semillas on December second, two thousand ten, the plaintiff company requested "...we ask that my represented party be summoned to submit the necessary requirements in order to continue with the registration process for the rice variety Palmar 18 in the Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas) kept by OFINASE for this purpose..." (folios 06 and 07 of the administrative file); 7) That by official letter number ONS 310-10 D.E. of December first, two thousand eleven, the Executive Director of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas submitted a consultation to the Legal Advisor of that body, to the effect that: “…a) Can the receipt date of letter GG-SEN-007-08 be legally recognized as the filing date of the application? b) Can the date of registration of the variety in the Commercial Registry be taken as a reference to consider the novelty condition? (…) c) … Could the date on which the ONS received letter GG-SEN-007-08 be recognized as the day of presentation of the protection application that the interested company would be processing and submitting in the coming days, arguing that once Law 8631 was approved in the second legislative debate, the application has legal backing and should have been attended to, despite the fact that the Law had not yet been published (which occurred until March 19, 2008) and that, of course, a regulation to the Law did not exist?...” (folios 08 and 09 of the administrative file); 8) That by writing dated December 13, two thousand ten, received at the ONS on December 17 of the same year, the Legal Advisor responded to the consultation raised by the Executive Director of the ONS, to the effect that: “…1) Note G-SEN-007-08 cannot be legally recognized as the presentation of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title. 2) The date of registration of the variety in the Commercial Registry cannot be taken as a reference to consider novelty. 3) As the previous assumptions are not accepted as valid, the consideration of retroacting the facts in time to proceed with a registration is irrelevant…”. This is because, in general terms, she considered: “…In light of these provisions, emanating from the same legislative act, it can be appreciated that the Oficina Nacional de Semillas was unable to grant a plant breeder's right without the specific promulgation of the regulation to the law (…) The Regulation to the law was published until January 11 of the year 2010, so it was only as of that date that the Oficina Nacional de Semillas was able to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the law and the regulation itself…” (folios 10 to 12 of the administrative file); 9) That by agreement 2, Article 6, adopted in session 609 held on December fifteenth, two thousand ten, the Board of Directors of the ONS ordered: “…The criterion and conclusion of the legal advisory of this Office are accepted regarding the application of the company SENUMISA, in the sense that: 1) Note G-SEN-007-08 cannot be legally recognized as the presentation of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title. 2) The date of registration of the variety in the Commercial Registry cannot be taken as a reference to consider novelty. 3) As the previous assumptions are not accepted as valid, the consideration of retroacting the facts in time to proceed with a registration is irrelevant. The Administration is instructed to communicate the resolution to the company Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A.…” (folio 15 of the administrative file); 10) That by official letter number ONS-332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, the Executive Director of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas communicated to the plaintiff company that “…I hereby respond to your letter SEN-GG 036-10, regarding the application for protection of the Palmar 18 variety in favor of your represented party (…) We regret that, in this particular case and given the circumstances in which it was presented, it is not feasible to process what was requested by your represented party (…) It should be noted that the regulation to the Law was published in the Official Gazette until January 11, 2010. So it is only as of that date that the Office was able to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the Law and the Regulation. Although the initial response note reflects the good disposition to attend to your application, at the time it was filed we could not proceed with the processing, since we did not have all the regulatory instruments required to formalize the application. Finally, I must indicate that, given the relevance of the case, this matter has been addressed within our Board of Directors, which agreed to accept the criterion and conclusion of our legal advisory…” (folios 13 and 14 of the administrative file); 11) That by agreement 2, Article 6, adopted in session 616 held on September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, the Board of Directors of the ONS ordered: “…TO CLARIFY AGREEMENT TWO, ARTICLE SIX, MINUTES OF SESSION NUMBER SIX HUNDRED NINE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEDNESDAY DECEMBER FIFTEENTH, TWO THOUSAND TEN, said agreement being considered sustained on the legal arguments contained in the Legal Advisory opinion that were accepted in those minutes…”. This is because it was considered - in general terms - that: “…the opinion of the legal advisor on the point referring to the fact that the note initially filed by Nombre143465 cannot be legally recognized as the presentation of an application to obtain a breeder's title, represents the legal basis and the reason for this position. That is, it responds to the legal and material impossibility of the administration to act at that time due to lack of law, since it was not in force at the time of filing the note under consecutive number GG-SEN-007-08, as well as the lack of regulatory normative support that would allow us to act within the channels of legality derived from Articles 11 of the Constitución Política and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública…” (folios 67 to 74 of the judicial file); 12) That by certification issued on March twenty-seventh, two thousand twelve, the Head of the Technical Department of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas certified that “…according to the files and records kept by this office, the Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas) was implemented as of the promulgation of Law 8631 PROTECTION OF PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS (PROTECCIÓN DE LAS OBTENCIONES VEGETALES) published in La Gaceta 56 on March 19, 2008 and its Regulation Decreto Nº 35677-MAG published in La Gaceta Nº6 of January 11 of the year 2010. Consequently, prior to those dates, the System for the Registry of Protected Varieties (Sistema para el Registro de Variedades Protegidas) had not been established…” (folio 115 of the judicial file).

IIo.- PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING. The plaintiff estimates that in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 8, 10, 15 subsections c) and d) and 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Law number 6289 of December 4, 1978); 9, 34 subsection a), 60 and 61 of the Regulation to that Law, the Oficina Nacional de Semillas had clearly defined the scope and powers to make effective the Variety Protection and Breeder's Rights of New Plant Varieties; therefore, in its opinion, it was its responsibility since 1978, not only to open a Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas), in order to protect the rights of those who register new, created, or discovered varieties, but also to establish the necessary requirements and procedure for that purpose. Due to the foregoing, it considers that since 1978 it has a right to protect intellectual property in the matter of plant breeders' rights, which was reinforced as of March 19, two thousand eight, the effective date of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales, Law number 8631). That this right also finds support in the provisions of Articles 47 of the Constitución Política, 1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Anexo 1 C of the WTO Agreement, approved by Costa Rica through Law 7475, which entered into force on December 26, 1994); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad); and the Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties, published in La Gaceta number 83 of April 30, two thousand eight. Due to the foregoing, it considers that the challenged acts are contrary to the provisions of Articles 131, 132 and 133 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, since in its opinion, rejecting the application filed as of March 18, two thousand eight, for the registration of the Palmar 18 Variety in the Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas), under the argument that at the time of its filing before the ONS, not only had the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales, Law number 8631) not entered into force, but also, the executive regulation to that law had not been issued, in which not only the requirements but also the procedure to be applied, in order to determine the appropriateness or not of the applications filed for the protection of plant breeders' rights, had to be established, is substantially contrary to the legal system. In that sense, it maintains that the ONS should have taken into account that administrative regulations must be interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the realization of the public purpose to which they are directed, so that if one day after its represented party filed its application for registration of the Palmar 18 Variety, a rule already existed that declared the activity of variety generation of national interest and another rule that established its competence to receive, process, and resolve applications, then it should have considered that waiting for a regulation to exist to determine whether the granting of a registration of this class was appropriate or not, in no way satisfied the public purpose of benefiting agricultural development and competitiveness, therefore, it estimates that in the absence of said regulation, it should have integrated the rules existing at the time of filing the application, or otherwise, straighten the procedures with the regulation that had already been issued. Due to the foregoing, it considers it inappropriate that three years after the application was filed for the registration of the Palmar 18 variety in the Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas), the ONS decided to reject it under the argument that at the time of its presentation it did not have the regulatory tools to process it, despite the fact that in its opinion, the right to obtain protection for the breeder of a plant variety, provided for in the Constitución Política, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), and the Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties, is of immediate application and does not require a law to produce its effects.

In addition to the foregoing, it considers it improper to reject its application on the grounds that at the time of its filing, the regulation that, in accordance with Article 7 of Law 8631, was to be issued to regulate the procedures and general rules for the submission, processing, and resolution of applications for the granting of breeder's rights had not yet been issued, when the Executive Branch delayed almost two years in issuing the executive regulation to Law 8631. Therefore, it alleges it is improper to attribute the negative consequences of that delay to its represented party, as constitutional jurisprudence has held in similar cases (ruling 1900-1463 of fourteen hours thirty minutes of October thirty, nineteen ninety). Consequently, it considers that the non-compliance incurred by the ONS produced an unlawful injury both to the plaintiff company and to the public interest. For their part, the representatives of the State and the National Seed Office maintain that: a) The basis for the act is fully conformed, since the factual background is constituted by the premature submission of the application, the recognition of which is sought in this matter. They emphasize that the plaintiff filed its petition prior to the publication in La Gaceta of the Law, a situation which, in their judgment, evidences that the regulatory body upon which the plaintiff seeks to rest its right was not yet effective. By reason of the foregoing, they consider that granting what the plaintiff has petitioned would be contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 129 of the Political Constitution, and 7 of the Civil Code, since at the time of filing the petition, the norm on which it is based had not yet come into legal existence; b) They allege that Law 8631 itself imposed an additional limitation, since Article 7 subjects all procedures, formalities, examinations, and resolutions in the matter of granting breeder's rights to the regulatory norm, which did not exist at the time the application was submitted. They consider that this circumstance denies any possibility for any dependency or instance of the ONS, through an interpretative or integrative method, to attribute to itself the powers to set the parameters for obtaining protection in this matter, as there is a clear regulatory reservation given by the law. Likewise, they allege that the validity of a law begins with its publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, and therefore, its application and interpretation can only occur after that moment and not before, as the plaintiff wrongly intends; c) They indicate that no harm can arise for the plaintiff company from the time elapsed to issue the Regulation to Law 8631, since it filed its petition prematurely and for that reason was rejected. That is, they maintain that regardless of the moment the regulatory body under analysis was issued, the petition subject to litigation was going to be denied, and therefore, the reasonableness and proportionality of the timeframe for issuing the Regulation to Law 8631 cannot constitute a ground for the nullity of the challenged acts, not only because this aspect is not and should not be discussed in this proceeding, but also because the aspects to be regulated required a thorough analysis and, therefore, the time elapsed for the issuance of the Regulation responds to the technical nature of the matter and the effective protection that must be provided to each natural or legal person seeking the granting of a breeder's right; d) Finally, the representative of the State alleges that the plaintiff omitted to indicate the nature of the injuries claimed and their quantification. By reason of the foregoing, she considers herself to be in a total state of defenselessness, being unaware of the type of injury, what it consists of, and its quantification, a circumstance that entails the material impossibility of defense. However, she indicates that should it be considered that there is some injury that must be compensated, the ONS has its own budget and, therefore, the obligation to pay the amounts assessed must fall upon it, in accordance with the ruling of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling number 1360-F-S1-2010 of ten hours twenty-five minutes of November eleventh, two thousand ten.

**I II o.- REGARDING THE RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF PLANT BREEDING ACHIEVEMENTS, PRIOR TO LAW # 8631 AND THE MECHANISMS FOR SAFEGUARDING THE SAME PROVIDED FOR IN LAW # 6289.** While it is true that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 129 of the Political Constitution, laws are obligatory and take effect from the day they designate and, failing that requirement, ten days after their publication in the Official Gazette; it is also true that paragraph 2 of that same numeral establishes that **no one may plead ignorance of the law**. In that sense, and contrary to what the representatives of the State and the National Seed Office maintain, the recognition of the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements does not originate with the entry into force on March 19, two thousand eight, of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements (number 8631), but rather has its genesis in Article 47 of the Political Constitution itself, which establishes *“…Every author, inventor, producer, or merchant shall temporarily enjoy the exclusive property of his work, invention, trademark, or trade name, in accordance with the law…”*. That being said, given that the constitutional framers delegated the regulation of that right to the legislator, through the Law of the National Seed Office (Law 6289), which entered into force on December fourth, nineteen seventy-eight, it created the ONS as an organ of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock with independence in its operative functioning and its own legal personality in its administration, **which shall be in charge of the promotion and protection**, improvement, control, and use of superior quality seeds *(Article 1)*. For such purpose, the ONS **must maintain –among other aspects– a register of commercial varieties**, with recommendations or restrictions on their use, **as well as a register of protected varieties;** as well as **establish the rules and controls for the production of the rights of the breeder of new varieties** *-Articles 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d)-*. To fulfill this last aspect, the National Seed Office, through the regulation to Law 6289, **shall fix the conditions that must be met to obtain the titles of seed producer, as well as their different categories, rights, and obligations**. It shall likewise regulate the trade among producers, processors, and merchants in general, to guarantee the quality of the seeds, for which purpose a registry shall be established authorizing whoever registers to trade in seeds *–Articles 10, 20 subsections a) and b)-*. In that sense, the Regulation to the Law of the National Seed Office (Executive Decree number 12907-A, which entered into force on September 21, 1981), established in Articles 60 and 61 –respectively– that **the ONS shall open a Register of Protected Varieties in which new varieties, created or discovered, shall be inscribed**; **and that the inscription in the Register of Protected Varieties shall be made in accordance with the requirements that the National Seed Office establishes for that purpose in due course**. This is because the ONS has the power to propose to the Executive Branch the modification of that Executive Decree and the issuance of the decrees necessary for the performance of the functions imposed upon it by the Law and the Regulation itself *(Article 34 subsection 1)*. Finally, Article 88 of that same Regulation defines protected varieties as those new plant varieties created or discovered, duly inscribed in the Register of Protected Varieties established for that purpose. It should be highlighted that through Article 1 of Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004, Articles 60 and 61 of the Regulation to the Law of the National Seed Office were modified –among others–, <span style="text-decoration:underline">thereby eliminating the rules referring to the obligation to regulate everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties</span> **(which was created in 1978 by Law 6289)** <span style="text-decoration:underline">and, therefore, the effective safeguarding of the rights of the breeder of protected varieties, which Law 6289 imposes on the ONS as one of its main functions</span>, focusing solely on regulating the Register of Commercial Varieties *(see recitals 3 to 6 of Executive Decree number 31736, in the digital version of that regulation, on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij)*. At this point, it should be highlighted that <span style="text-decoration:underline">not only the Law of the National Seed Office (Law 6289) imposes on the State in general and on the ONS in particular the effective regulation of the protection rights for plant breeding achievements</span>, but also the following norms: ***i)*** **The Law on Patents of Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models** (Law number 6867, which entered into force on April 25, 1983), establishes in Article 1, subsections 1 and 3, respectively, that *“…1.- An invention is every creation of the human intellect, capable of industrial application, that fulfills the conditions of patentability provided for in this law. It may be a product, a machine, a tool, or a manufacturing procedure and shall be protected by the patent of invention (…) 3.-* <span style="text-decoration:underline">*Plant breeding achievements shall have protection through a special law*</span>*…”*; ***ii)*** The Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, specifically Annex 1 C, called **the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),** which was approved by the Legislative Assembly through Law number 7475, which entered into force on December 26, 1994, in whose Article 1.1 it is stated that *“Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement, provided that such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement.* <span style="text-decoration:underline">*Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice*</span>*”*. Likewise, it is indicated that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, <span style="text-decoration:underline">to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations</span> *(Article 7).* Finally, and what is relevant for the specific case, Article 8 establishes the principles that must govern internal legislation aimed at protecting intellectual property, in the sense that *“…Members, when formulating or amending their laws and regulations, may adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, or to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are compatible with the provisions of this Agreement.”* ***iii)*** **The Biodiversity Law** *(Law number 7788, which entered into force on May 27, 1998)*, which establishes that the State recognizes the existence and validity of forms of knowledge and innovation and **the need to protect them, through the use of the appropriate legal mechanisms for each specific case** *(Article 77)*, which translate –among other forms and with the exceptions contemplated therein– **to patents, trade secrets, plant breeder's rights, sui generis community intellectual rights, copyright, farmers' rights** *(Article 78)*. This is because there exists a public interest in guaranteeing that the country and its inhabitants are recipients of information and scientific-technical cooperation in biodiversity matters, as well as having access to technology through adequate transfer policies, including biotechnology and associated knowledge; by reason of which, the State must facilitate access to the relevant technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, **without prejudice to intellectual property rights, industrial property rights, or sui generis community intellectual rights** *(Article 88)*. Notwithstanding the foregoing, <span style="text-decoration:underline">the State and the National Seed Office breached the duty imposed by the Political Constitution; the TRIPS Agreement (approved by Law 7475); Laws 6289, 6867, and 7788; Executive Decree number 12907-A, regarding regulating everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties</span>**, which had been created since 1978 by Law 6289,** <span style="text-decoration:underline">and therefore, the effective safeguarding of the rights of the breeder of protected varieties, which that Law imposes on the ONS as one of its main functions.</span> So much so, that by certification issued on March twenty-seventh, two thousand twelve, the Head of the Technical Department of the National Seed Office recorded that *“…according to the files and records kept by this office, the Register of Protected Varieties,* <span style="text-decoration:underline">*was implemented starting from the enactment of Law 8631 PROTECTION OF PLANT BREEDING ACHIEVEMENTS published in Gazette 56 on March 19, 2008, and its Regulation Decree Nº 35677-MAG published in Gazette Nº 6 on January 11, 2010.*</span> <span style="text-decoration:underline">*Consequently, prior to those dates, the System for the Register of Protected Varieties had not been established*</span>*…”* (folio 115 of the judicial file). Consequently, the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements **was not only recognized generally since the enactment of the 1949 Constitution** *(Article 47)*, **and in particular since 1978 with the entry into force of Law number 6289** *-Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b)-*, but also, **said Law generally established the** **mechanisms for safeguarding the same, through the creation of the Register of Protected Varieties, the implementation of which was conditional upon the Executive Branch establishing, through regulatory means and at the request of the ONS, the requirements and the procedure to be followed for that purpose**, which <span style="text-decoration:underline">was never done during the period between December fourth, 1978 (the date of entry into force of Law 6289) and January eleventh, 2010 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, Executive Decree number 35677)</span>. Quite the opposite, since through Article 1 of Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004, Articles 60 and 61 of the Regulation to the Law of the National Seed Office were modified –among others–, <span style="text-decoration:underline">thereby eliminating the rules referring to the obligation to regulate, via regulation, everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties</span> **(which was created in 1978 by Law 6289)** focusing solely on regulating the Register of Commercial Varieties *(see recitals 3 to 6 of Executive Decree number 31736, in the digital version of that regulation, on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij)*, which is manifestly and evidently contrary to the provisions of the very law it regulates. The foregoing, despite the fact that even since December twenty-sixth, 1994, the Costa Rican State had approved, through Law 7475, the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, specifically Annex 1 C, called **the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and therefore, had committed itself internationally**, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1.1, 7, and 8.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, to formulate and/or modify its laws and regulations in order to effectively protect and enforce intellectual property rights, in accordance with the provisions of said Agreement *(Article 7 paragraph 1 and 48 of the Political Constitution)*. Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that **the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements did not repeal the provisions contained in Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office,** related to the creation and regulation of the Register of Protected Varieties and, therefore, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties. For all the foregoing, this Court considers that it is not only substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 7 paragraph 1, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1.1, 7 and 8.1 of the TRIPS Agreement (Law 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Law 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents of Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law 6867); 77, 78, and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Law 7788); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Executive Decree number 12907-A (Articles 60 and 61 before the reform by Article 1 of Executive Decree 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); but also **to the principles of logic and justice** *(Article 16 subsection 1 of the General Law of Public Administration)*, for the defendants to allege that prior to the entry into force of both the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements (Law number 8631 of March 19, 2008) and the Regulation to that Law (Executive Decree number 35677-MAG of January 11, 2010), it was not possible to receive applications seeking the recognition of protection rights for plant breeding achievements, because there was no norm that protected them, nor provisions regulating **the requirements and the procedure to be followed for their possible inscription in the Register of Protected Varieties,** not only because the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements **was recognized generally since the enactment of the Political Constitution of 1949** *(Article 47)*, **and in particular since 1978 with the entry into force of Law number 6289** *-Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b)-*, <span style="text-decoration:underline">being reaffirmed both in 1983 with the provisions of Article 1 subsections 1 and 3 of Law 6867, and in 1998 with Articles 77, 78, and 88 of the Biodiversity Law;</span> but also because, in addition, **Law 6289 itself generally established the** **mechanisms for safeguarding the same, through the creation of the Register of Protected Varieties, the implementation of which was conditional upon the Executive Branch establishing, through regulatory means and at the request of the ONS, the requirements and the procedure to be followed for that purpose**, which was not done until January 11, 2010, with the entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, Executive Decree number 35677. Consequently, **the defendants cannot validly transfer** to whoever requests a declaration of the breeder's right over a seed variety they seek to have protected and inscribed in the respective register – **the negative effects** **derived from the administrative inactivity they incurred from December fourth, 1978** (the date of entry into force of Law 6289) **until January eleventh, 2010** (the date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeding Achievements, Executive Decree number 35677), **by failing to regulate in a prompt, complete, and lawful manner**, the safeguard mechanisms for the right to the protection of plant breeding achievements provided for since 1978 by Law 6289 and the Regulation to that Law, under the argument that at the time the petition was filed, no law or regulation was in force that protected the right claimed, as will be analyzed in the following recital.

**IV.- REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY DEFECTS OF THE CHALLENGED FORMAL CONDUCT**.

This Court considers that the </span><span style="color:#010101">agreements number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office; the</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> Official Letter ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, suffer from defects of absolute nullity, as they are substantially contrary to the legal order, for the reasons set forth below: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">1) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">Regarding the motive</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. </span><span style="color:#010101">This Court considers that the motive underpinning the challenged acts is illegitimate, as it is based on "…</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">the legal and material impossibility of the administration to act at that time due to the lack of a law, given that it was not in force when the note under serial number GG-SEN-007-08 was submitted, as well as the lack of regulatory normative support that would allow us to act</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> within the channels of legality derived from articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Public Administration Law…" (folios 67 to 74 of the judicial file; 13, 14, and 15 of the administrative file). </span><span style="color:#010101">In this regard, as analyzed in Considerando III of this judgment, it is substantially contrary to the legal order for the defendants to claim that, before the entry into force of both the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Law No. 8631 of March 19, 2008) and the Regulation to that Law (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35677-MAG of January 11, 2010), it was not possible to receive applications seeking the recognition of plant breeders' rights (derechos de protección de las obtenciones vegetales) because no rule existed to protect them, nor were there provisions regulating </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">the requirements and the procedure to follow for their possible registration in the Register of Protected Varieties, when, as explained supra, such regulations did exist</span><span style="color:#010101"> . </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">2) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">In relation to the content</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">.</span><span style="color:#010101"> This Court considers that the content sustaining the challenged acts is not lawful, as it is based on </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">"…In light of these provisions, emanating from the same legislative act, it can be appreciated that the National Seed Office was unable to grant a plant breeder's right without the specific enactment of the regulation to the law (…) The Regulation to the law was not published until January 11, 2010, so it was not until that date that the National Seed Office was enabled to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the law and the regulation itself…" (folios 10 to 14 of the administrative file). </span><span style="color:#010101">In the first instance, while it is true that Article 7 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Law 8631) establishes that </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">"…</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">The procedures and general rules for the submission, publication of information on applications, granting of breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations, the processing, the technical examination, and the resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right</span><span style="font-style:italic">, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">shall be established by regulation</span><span style="font-style:italic">. // The procedures and rules developed by regulation must include, as a minimum, the requirements that applications for obtaining the plant breeder's right certificate must meet, the obligation to publish a notice of submitted applications, the opportunity for third parties to file oppositions to submitted applications before they are granted, and the competent body for resolving the procedure. Information on granted breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations shall also be published."; </span><span>this circumstance does not imply that interested parties </span><span style="color:#010101">seeking the declaration of the breeder's right over a seed variety they intend to have protected and registered in the respective registry, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">could not submit the corresponding application before the enactment of Law 8631,</span><span style="color:#010101"> for the reasons already indicated in the preceding section; or, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">in the period between the date of entry into force of Law 8631 (March 19, 2008) and the date on which the Regulation to Law 8631 was published and entered into force (January 11, 2010)</span><span style="color:#010101">. This is because, since December 4, 1978, </span><span>The National Seed Office (Ofinase) is the competent body to receive, process, and resolve applications for registration in both the Register of Commercial Varieties and the Register of Protected Varieties and, in the latter case, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties, pursuant to Articles 1,</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span>8 sections c) and d), 10, 15 sections c) and d), 20 sections a) and b) of Law 6289;</span><span style="color:#010101"> 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the reform introduced by Decreto Ejecutivo number </span><span>31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); which is reaffirmed in Article 5 of Law </span><span style="color:#010101">8631 and 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677</span><span>. Consequently, the fact that </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">before the enactment of Law 8631</span><span style="color:#010101"> or during </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">the period between the date of entry into force of Law 8631 (March 19, 2008) and the date on which the Regulation to Law 8631 was published and entered into force (January 11, 2010)</span><span>, the regulation that would define the procedures and general rules for the submission, publication of information on applications, granting of breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations, the processing, the technical examination, and the resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right had not been issued, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline">did not prevent the submission of applications seeking the protection of a plant variety through its registration in the Register of Protected Varieties, the effective processing of which would remain pending until the respective regulatory provisions were issued</span><span>. Asserting the contrary is contrary to the principles of logic and justice and to the provisions of Articles </span><span style="color:#010101">7 paragraph 1, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 section 1, 7 and 8 section 1 of TRIPS (Law 7475); 1, </span><span>8 sections c) and d), 15 sections c) and d), 10, 20 sections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Law 6289); 1 sections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents of Invention, Industrial Designs and Utility Models (Law 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Law 7788), not only because it implies </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">transferring</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">, as already stated,</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> to the party requesting the declaration of the breeder's right over a seed variety it intends to have protected and registered in the respective registry—</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">the negative effects</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">derived from the administrative inactivity they incurred from December 4, 1978</span><span style="color:#010101"> (date of entry into force of Law 6289) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">until January 11, 2010</span><span style="color:#010101"> (date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677), </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">by failing to regulate in a prompt, complete, and legally compliant manner</span><span style="color:#010101">, the mechanisms for safeguarding the right to the protection of plant breeders' rights (protección de las obtenciones vegetales) contemplated since 1978 by Law 6289 and the Regulation to that Law, reaffirmed by Law 8631 and Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677, under the argument that at the time the petition was filed, no law or regulation was in force that supported the right it claims to have </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">(folio 1 of the administrative file)</span><span style="color:#010101">; but also, because </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">it is legally its obligation to receive them to provide the respective processing,</span><span style="color:#010101"> even if this processing was contingent upon the issuance of the executive regulation, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">since the ONS is the competent body to receive, process, and resolve them</span><span style="color:#010101">, pursuant to the provisions of numerals </span><span>1,</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span>8 sections c) and d), 10, 15 sections c) and d), 20 sections a) and b) of Law 6289;</span><span style="color:#010101"> 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the reform introduced by Decreto Ejecutivo number </span><span>31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Law </span><span style="color:#010101">8631 and 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677.</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101"> Consequently, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 288 section 1) of the General Public Administration Law,</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">March 18, two thousand eight, is maintained as the date of submission to the National Seed Office of the application filed by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of Variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties</span><span style="color:#010101">, just as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight, when informing the representative of the plaintiff company that </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">"...I acknowledge </span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">receipt of your letter GG-SEN-007-08, of March 11, 2008, by which you formally submit an application for the registration of the rice variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">…" (folio 02 of the administrative file)</span><span style="color:#010101">. In that sense, and as a second aspect to analyze, while it is true that </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">it was not possible to apply, in the case of plant variety breeders' rights, the procedural rules contained in Articles 6 to 15 of the Law </span><span style="font-weight:bold">on Patents of Invention, Industrial Designs and Utility Models</span><span> (Law 6867), which regulate the procedure to follow when seeking to patent an invention, given that </span><span style="font-style:italic">the nature of the requirements for the granting of an invention patent and its subsequent registration (Article 6 of Law 6867) are different from those</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> required to obtain the protection of a plant variety</span><span style="color:#010101"> (Article 7 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677); so much so, that section 3 of Article 1 of the Law </span><span>on Patents of Invention, Industrial Designs and Utility Models itself establishes that </span><span style="font-style:italic">"…Plant breeder's rights shall be protected through a special law…"; </span><span>it is also true that the National Seed Office, in application of the provisions of Articles 39, 41, and 47 of the Political Constitution; 221 section 1) and 287 of the General Public Administration Law, should have notified the plaintiff company, once the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Decreto Ejecutivo </span><span style="color:#010101">35677) entered into force, to complete or correct it within a period of thirty business days, in accordance with the requirements provided in numerals 7 to 11 of</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span>Decreto Ejecutivo </span><span style="color:#010101">35677, in order to establish—in the first instance—the formal examination of the petition filed. This is because </span><span>the procedure for processing and resolving the application </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">filed by the plaintiff company on March 18, two thousand eight, to register Variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, was halted due to causes attributable to the defendants</span><span style="color:#010101">, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">who delayed</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">from December 4, 1978</span><span style="color:#010101"> (date of entry into force of Law 6289) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">until January 11, 2010</span><span style="color:#010101"> (date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677), to regulate the mechanisms for safeguarding the right to the protection of plant breeders' rights contemplated since 1978 by Law 6289 and the Regulation to that Law. So much so, that the plaintiff company itself, in the application filed on March 18, two thousand eight, aware that its application was contingent upon the regulation of the procedure and the establishment of requirements through that means, stated "…</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101"> We thank you in advance for your valuable collaboration </span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">in endorsing the registration procedure and we request that you indicate the procedure to follow in order to complete the registration process</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">..." (folio 01 of the administrative file)</span><span style="color:#010101">.</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> It is worth noting at this point, that through official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight, the Executive Director of the National Seed Office himself communicated to the Manager of the plaintiff company that: </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">"…</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101"> we hope in the short term to be able to indicate to you the procedures and requirements that applications must meet, both in formal-administrative aspects and in technical conditions</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">. For the moment, i</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">n the interest of advancing in the fulfillment of requirements, I allow myself to attach the format used by UPOV for the description of rice varieties</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">..." (folio 02 of the administrative file). </span><span style="color:#010101">This Court considers that, based on the foregoing, it is contrary </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">to the principles of good faith and legitimate expectations,</span><span style="color:#010101"> that two years and nearly nine months after the Executive Director of the ONS issued said letter, the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office denied the plaintiff company's application for registration of Variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, under the argument that "…</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">Note G-SEN-007-083) cannot be legally recognized as the submission of an application to obtain a plant breeder's certificate (…) By not accepting the above assumptions as valid, it is irrelevant to consider retroacting events in time to proceed with a registration…", </span><span style="color:#010101">since—we reiterate—</span><span>in application of the provisions of Articles 39, 41, and 47 of the Political Constitution; 221 section 1) and 287 of the General Public Administration Law, </span><span style="font-weight:bold">it should have notified the plaintiff company, once the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Decreto Ejecutivo </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">35677) entered into force, to complete or correct the application filed,</span><span style="color:#010101"> within the period of thirty business days, in accordance with the requirements provided in numerals 7 to 11 of</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span>Decreto Ejecutivo </span><span style="color:#010101">35677, in order to establish—in the first instance—the formal examination of the petition filed.</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">3) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">Regarding the purpose</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. </span><span style="color:#010101">It should be recalled that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 8 sections c) and d), 10, 15 sections c) and d) of the Law Creating the Seed Office; 7 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); 88 of the Biodiversity Law, and 3 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights, </span><span>there is a public interest in guaranteeing to the country and its inhabitants the receipt of scientific-technical information and cooperation in the field of biodiversity, as well as access to technology through appropriate transfer policies, including biotechnology and associated knowledge; for this reason, the State must facilitate access to relevant technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, specifically regarding the activity of variety generation by natural and legal persons, public or private, due to the benefits this derives for national agricultural development and competitiveness, </span><span style="font-weight:bold">without prejudice to intellectual property rights, industrial property rights, or sui generis collective intellectual rights</span><span style="color:#010101">. In this sense, the challenged acts are contrary to the primary purposes provided by the legal order, which aim to </span><span>protect the rights of breeders of plant varieties, safeguarding the right of use by small and medium farmers, by illegitimately and unjustifiably rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff company seeking the registration of the Palmar 18 variety in the Register of Protected Varieties. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">4) Corollary.</span><span> For all the foregoing, this Court finds that: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">i) </span><span>The </span><span style="color:#010101">agreements number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office; and Official Letter ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, suffer from defects of absolute nullity, as they are substantially contrary to the legal order, specifically to the provisions of Articles 7 paragraph 1, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 section 1, 7 and 8 section 1 of TRIPS (Law 7475); 1, </span><span>8 sections c) and d), 15 sections c) and d), 10, 20 sections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Law 6289); 1 sections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents of Invention, Industrial Designs and Utility Models (Law 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Law 7788); 11, 16 section 1), </span><span style="color:#010101">131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, </span><span>221 section 1), 287 and </span><span style="color:#010101">288 section 1) of the General Public Administration Law</span><span>; 5, 7 and 12 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Law 8631); 34 section a), 60 and 61, 88 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 12907-A </span><span style="font-style:italic">(numerals 60 and 61 prior to the reform by Article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); </span><span>4, 7 to 11 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677-MAG and the principles of justice, logic, good faith, and legitimate expectations; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">ii) </span><span style="color:#010101">In accordance with the provisions of numerals </span><span>1,</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span>8 sections c) and d), 10, 15 sections c) and d), 20 sections a) and b) of Law 6289;</span><span style="color:#010101"> 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the reform introduced by Decreto Ejecutivo number </span><span>31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Law </span><span style="color:#010101">8631 and 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677-MAG; 288 section 1) of the General Public Administration Law, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">March 18, two thousand eight, is maintained as the date of submission to the National Seed Office of the application filed by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of Variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, just as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight</span><span style="color:#010101">; </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">iii)</span><span style="color:#010101"> Consequently, and in accordance with Articles 7 and 12 of Law 8631, 7 to 11 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677-MAG, </span><span>221 section 1), and 287 </span><span style="color:#010101">section 1) of the General Public Administration Law, the National Seed Office is ordered to commence processing the application submitted by the plaintiff company on March 18, two thousand eight, in accordance with the procedure established in Articles 11 to 24 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677-MAG, </span><span>221 section 1), so that it resolves as corresponds in law.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">VI.- REGARDING THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN THE ABSTRACT. </span><span style="color:#010101">While it is true that section m, sub-section iii of Article 122 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code establishes the possibility for the Court to award damages in the abstract (daños y perjuicios en abstracto) when their existence and amount are not established, provided they are a consequence of the administrative conduct or legal relationship subject to the claim; it is also true that this does not negate the obligation established in Article 58 section 1.e) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, regarding the requirement that, when damages are accessorily claimed—as in this case—the reason that originates them, what they consist of, and their prudential estimate must be specified. In the </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">case at hand,</span><span style="color:#010101"> the plaintiff company limited itself to indicating that the damages it claims in the abstract </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">derive from the administrative inactivity (inactividad administrativa) challenged </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">(folio 18 of the judicial file)</span><span style="color:#010101">, however, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">it did not indicate what they consist of, nor did it estimate them prudentially</span><span style="color:#010101">, a circumstance which, as the State's representative indicates, places</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> the defendants in a state of defenselessness, since—in principle—</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">the omission in determining these aspects prevents establishing whether the alleged existence and amount of the claimed damages are or are not a consequence of the conduct subject to the claim</span><span style="color:#010101">. Now, it is necessary to clarify that, contrary to what the plaintiff company asserts,</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">the object of the process essentially consists of the formal conduct issued by the ONS and not an administrative inactivity (inactividad administrativa) in the strict sense,</span><span style="color:#010101"> since the ONS</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> based the rejection of the application filed on March 18, two thousand eight, on a presumed absence of legal norms that, in the first instance, supported the petition filed by the plaintiff company, and secondly, on the non-existence of a regulation governing the processing and requirements to address its application. Now, and contrary to what the plaintiff company asserts, from the evidence adduced to the file </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">it cannot be concluded that the damages whose award in the abstract it claims are a consequence of the administrative conduct subject to the process </span><span style="color:#010101">—an essential prerequisite for an award in the abstract—</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">,</span><span style="color:#010101"> since through official letter number ONS 065-2010 DT of November 30, two thousand ten, an official of the Rice Seed Program of the ONS communicated—in relevant part—to the plaintiff company that </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">"…if the receipt date of letter GG-SEN-007-08 could be granted as the submission date of an application for protection of the breeder's rights regarding the Palmar 18 variety, which is under legal consultation, </span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">we would not have affected the rights of Nombre143465 by accepting the application of (…), since in any case your represented party could collect usage rights for the variety a posteriori</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">. In the event of a resolution granting breeder's rights in favor of Nombre143465, we will gladly be communicating the quantity of seeds that will be certified to Mr. (…)" (folios 04 and 05 of the administrative file)</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#010101">.

This is because, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1 and 23 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties, *"..does not infringe the breeder's right, whoever reserves and sows on his own holding, within reasonable limits and subject to the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of breeders, the product of the harvest which he has obtained by the cultivation, on his own holding, of a protected variety or of a variety covered by subparagraph (c) of Article 18 of this Law. Excepted from this provision are varieties of fruit, ornamental, and forest species, when commercial purposes are pursued..."*. Consequently, and for all the foregoing reasons, the claim seeking an abstract condemnation for the payment of damages is declared inadmissible.

**VI.- REGARDING THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES.** This Court reaches the conclusion that the company Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. has sufficient **standing (legitimación activa)** to participate in this proceeding in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, since the formal conduct being challenged is directed at it. Furthermore, **the action is correctly directed against the State and the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, since as provided in Article 12, subsection 2) of the cited Code, although the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, being the author of the administrative conduct challenged by the plaintiff *(see folios 18, verso 117 of the judicial file and the audiovisual recording of the preliminary hearing)*, is the principal party called upon to defend and support it when it is challenged, not only because it is the one who knows its basis or justification, but also because the conduct subject to the proceeding arises -in part- from the exercise of a competence granted to the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, specifically that which is supported by the provisions of Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289); 5 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties (Ley 8631); 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677-MAG, as it refers to being the competent body to receive, process, and resolve applications for registration in both the Registro de Variedades Comerciales and the Registro de Variedades Protegidas, and in the latter case, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties; it is also true that Article 12, subsection 2 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code establishes that both the body with instrumental legal personality and the State or the entity to which it is attached must be sued, in order to guarantee a better defense of the administrative conduct. On the other hand, **the interest remains current, as long as the conduct subject to the proceeding continues to have effects on the plaintiff's legal sphere and requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds that the defense of **lack of right (falta de derecho) filed by the State's representative must be partially upheld, only –as analyzed in Considerando V of this judgment– in that the claim seeking to condemn the defendants in abstract for the payment of damages is inadmissible. Consequently, and in accordance with all that has been set forth in Considerandos III and IV of this judgment, the defense of **lack of right** is **rejected in all other aspects, and consequently, the lawsuit filed by Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. against the State and the Oficina Nacional de Semillas is declared partially with merit, in the following terms, with any matters not expressly indicated herein being deemed denied: **i)** The absolute nullity is declared of agreements number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas; and Official Letter ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, for being substantially contrary to the legal system, specifically to the provisions of Articles 7 paragraph 1, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of TRIPS (Ley 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law of Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Designs, and Utility Models (Ley 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley 7788); 11, 16 subsection 1, 131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, 221 subsection 1, 287 and 288 subsection 1 of the General Law of Public Administration; 5, 7 and 12 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties (Ley 8631); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Decreto Ejecutivo 12907-A *(numerals 60 and 61 before the reform by Article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo 31736, which came into force on March 29, 2004)*; 4, 7 to 11 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677-MAG and the principles of justice, logic, good faith, and legitimate expectations (principios de justicia, lógica, buena fe y confianza legítima); **ii)** In accordance with the provisions of numerals 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Ley 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Ley 6289 (both in its version before and after the reform introduced by Decreto Ejecutivo 31736, which came into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Ley 8631 and 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677-MAG; 288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, **March 18, two thousand eight, is maintained as the filing date with the Oficina Nacional de Semillas, of the application filed by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of the Palmar 18 Variety in the Registro de Variedades Protegidas, just as the Oficina Nacional de Semillas itself had already considered in official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight**; **iii)** Consequently, and in accordance with Articles 7 and 12 of Ley 8631, 7 to 11 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), and 287 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, **the Oficina Nacional de Semillas is ordered** to initiate the processing of the application filed by the plaintiff company on March eighteen, two thousand eight, in accordance with the procedure established in Articles 11 to 24 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), in order to resolve what is legally appropriate; **iv)** The claim seeking an abstract condemnation for the payment of damages, as filed by the plaintiff, is declared inadmissible.

**VII.- REGARDING COSTS (COSTAS).** In accordance with numeral 193 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. The dispensation of this condemnation is only viable when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence whose existence the opposing party was unaware of. In the case at hand, this collegiate body considers that there is reason to apply the exception established by the regulation and break the postulate of condemning the defeated party, because to the extent that the defense of lack of right was partially upheld, **only** insofar as the claim related to the abstract condemnation for the payment of damages filed by the plaintiff is declared inadmissible, this circumstance allows both parties to be qualified as litigants in good faith (litigantes de buena fe) and with sufficient reason to litigate (motivo bastante para litigar).

**POR TANTO.** **The defense of lack of right (falta de derecho) filed by the State is upheld, only** with respect to the claim seeking an abstract condemnation for the payment of damages. Consequently, **the defense of lack of right is rejected in all other aspects, and the lawsuit is declared partially with merit** filed by Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A.

against the State and the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas), in the following terms, it being understood as denied with respect to anything not expressly indicated: 1) The absolute nullity is declared of agreements number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office; and Official Communication ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, for being substantially contrary to the legal system; 2) March 18, two thousand eight, is upheld as the filing date before the National Seed Office of the application submitted by the plaintiff company, aimed at the registration of the Palmar 18 Variety in the Register of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas), just as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official communication number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight; 3) The National Seed Office is ordered to initiate the processing of the application submitted by the plaintiff company on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, in accordance with the procedure established in articles 11 through 24 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), in order to resolve whatever is legally appropriate; 4) This matter is resolved without a special award of costs.

Marianella Álvarez Molina Cynthia Abarca Gómez José Martín Conejo Cantillo PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTOR: SEMILLAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO S.A.

DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO Y LA OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS II.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING. </p> </div> </body> </html> **The plaintiff** maintains that, in accordance with the provisions set forth in articles 1, 8, 10, 15 subsections c) and d), and 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas) (Law No. 6289 of December 4, 1978); 9, 34 subsection a), 60, and 61 of the Regulations to that Law, the National Seed Office had clearly defined the scope and powers to enforce Variety Protection (Protección Varietal) and Plant Breeder's Rights for New Plant Varieties; therefore, in its judgment, since 1978 it was its responsibility not only to open a Register of Protected Varieties, in order to protect the rights of those who register new, created, or discovered varieties, but also to establish the necessary requirements and procedure for this purpose. For this reason, it considers that since 1978 it has had a right to protect intellectual property in plant breeding material, which was reinforced starting on March 19, 2008, the date Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Ley para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales) (Law No. 8631) came into effect. That this right also finds support in the provisions of articles 47 of the Political Constitution, 1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Annex 1 C of the WTO Agreement, approved by Costa Rica through Law 7475, which came into effect on December 26, 1994); 77, 78, and 88 of the Biodiversity Law; and the Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties, published in La Gaceta No. 83 of April 30, 2008. For this reason, it considers that the contested actions are contrary to the provisions of articles 131, 132, and 133 of the General Law of Public Administration, since, in its judgment, it is substantially contrary to the legal system to reject the request filed on March 18, 2008, to register the Palmar 18 Variety in the Register of Protected Varieties, based on the argument that at the time of its filing with the ONS, not only had the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Law No. 8631) not yet come into effect, but also that the executive regulations to that law, which were to establish not only the requirements but also the applicable procedure to determine the admissibility of applications filed for the protection of plant varieties (protección de las obtenciones vegetales), had not yet been issued. In this regard, it argues that the ONS should have taken into account that administrative regulations must be interpreted in a manner that best guarantees the fulfillment of the public purpose they aim for, such that if a day after its represented party filed its application for registration of the Palmar 18 Variety, there already existed a norm declaring the activity of variety generation to be of national interest and another norm establishing its competence to receive, process, and resolve applications, then it should have considered that waiting for a regulation to exist to determine whether the granting of a registration of this type was appropriate in no way satisfied the public purpose of benefiting agricultural development and competitiveness; therefore, it believes that in the absence of such a regulation, it should have integrated the existing norms at the time the application was filed, or else, align the procedures with the regulation that had already been issued. For this reason, it considers it inappropriate that three years after the application was submitted to register the Palmar 18 variety in the Register of Protected Varieties, the ONS decided to reject it based on the argument that at the time of its filing, it did not have the regulatory tools to process it, despite the fact that, in its judgment, the right to obtain protection for the breeder of a plant variety, provided for in the Political Constitution, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Biodiversity Law, and the Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties, is of immediate application and does not require a law to produce its effects. In addition to the above, it considers it inappropriate to reject its application based on the argument that at the time of its filing, the regulation that, in accordance with article 7 of Law 8631, was to be issued to regulate the procedures and general rules for the filing, processing, and resolution of applications for the granting of breeder's rights had not yet been issued, given that the Executive Branch delayed almost two years in issuing the executive regulations to Law 8631; therefore, it claims it is inappropriate to attribute the negative consequences of that delay to its represented party, as constitutional jurisprudence has held in similar cases (ruling 1900-1463 of two-thirty in the afternoon on October 30, 1990). Consequently, it considers that the breaches incurred by the ONS produced an unlawful injury both to the plaintiff company and to the public interest. For their part, the **representatives of the State and of the National Seed Office** maintain that: **a)** The rationale for the act is fully substantiated, since the factual background consists of the premature filing of the application, the recognition of which is sought in this matter. They emphasize that the plaintiff filed its action prior to the publication in La Gaceta of the Law, a situation that, in their judgment, demonstrates that the legal body on which the plaintiff seeks to base its right was not yet effective. For this reason, they consider that acceding to the plaintiff's request would be contrary to the provisions of articles 11 and 129 of the Political Constitution, and 7 of the Civil Code, since at the time of filing the action, the norm on which it is based had not yet come into legal existence; **b)** They allege that Law 8631 itself imposed an additional limitation, since numeral 7 subjects all procedures, processes, examinations, and resolutions regarding the granting of breeder's rights to the regulatory norm, which did not exist at the time the application was filed. They believe that this circumstance denies any possibility that, through interpretation or integration, any dependency or body of the ONS could arrogate to itself powers to set the parameters necessary to obtain protection in this field, as there is a clear regulatory reservation established by law. They also allege that the effectiveness of a law begins with its publication in the Official Newspaper La Gaceta, and therefore, its application and interpretation can occur after that moment and not before, as the plaintiff wrongly intends; **c)** They indicate that no harm can arise for the plaintiff company from the time elapsed to issue the Regulations to Law 8631, since it filed its action prematurely and was rejected for that reason. That is, they argue that regardless of when the legal body under analysis was issued, the action in litigation would have been denied, and therefore, the reasonableness and proportionality of the timeframe for issuing the Regulations to Law 8631 cannot constitute grounds for nullity of the contested acts, not only because this aspect is not and should not be discussed in this proceeding, but also because the aspects to be regulated required in-depth analysis, and therefore, the time elapsed for issuing the Regulations corresponds to the technical nature of the matter and the effective protection that must be provided to each natural or legal person seeking the granting of a breeder's right; **d)** Finally, the State's representative alleges that the plaintiff failed to indicate what the claimed injuries consist of and their quantification. For this reason, it believes it is in a complete state of defenselessness, not knowing the type of injury, what it consists of, or its quantification—a circumstance that entails the material impossibility of defense. However, it indicates that if some compensable injury is considered to exist, the ONS has its own budget, and therefore, the imposition of the amounts to be paid must fall upon it, in accordance with what was resolved by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling number 1360-F-S1-2010 of the eleventh of November, two thousand ten.

**I II o.- REGARDING THE RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETIES, PRIOR TO LAW # 8631, AND THE PROTECTION MECHANISMS FOR THIS RIGHT PROVIDED FOR IN LAW # 6289.** While it is true that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 129 of the Political Constitution, laws are mandatory and take effect from the day they designate, and failing that requirement, ten days after their publication in the Official Newspaper, it is also true that paragraph 2 of that same numeral establishes that **no one may claim ignorance of the law**. In this regard, and contrary to what the representatives of the State and the National Seed Office maintain, the recognition of the right to the protection of plant varieties (protección de las obtenciones vegetales) does not originate with the entry into effect on March 19, 2008, of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Law No. 8631), but rather has its genesis in article 47 of the Political Constitution itself, which establishes *“…Every author, inventor, **producer**, or merchant shall temporarily enjoy the exclusive property of his work, **invention**, trademark, or trade name, **in accordance with the law**…”.* Now, given that the constitutional legislator delegates the regulation of that right to the legislator, through the Law of the National Seed Office (Law 6289), which came into effect on December 4, 1978, it created the ONS as a body of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock with independence in its operational functioning and its own legal personality in its administration, **which shall be responsible for the promotion and protection**, improvement, control, and use of superior quality seeds *(article 1)*. For this purpose, the ONS **must keep – among other things – a register of commercial varieties**, with recommendations or restrictions on their use, **as well as a register of protected varieties;** as well as also, **establish norms and controls for the production of breeder's rights for new varieties** *– articles 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d) –*. To fulfill this last aspect, the National Seed Office, through the regulations of Law 6289, **shall set the conditions to be met to obtain seed producer titles, as well as their different categories, rights, and obligations**. Likewise, it shall regulate trade among producers, processors, and merchants in general, to guarantee the quality of seeds, for which purpose a register shall be established that will authorize anyone who registers to trade seeds *– articles 10, 20 subsections a) and b)* *–*. In this sense, the Regulations to the Law of the National Seed Office (Executive Decree No. 12907-A, which came into effect on September 21, 1981), established in articles 60 and 61 – respectively – that **the ONS will open a Register of Protected Varieties where new, created, or discovered varieties will be registered**; **and that registration in the Register of Protected Varieties shall be done in accordance with the requirements established for this purpose by the National Seed Office at the appropriate time**. This is because the ONS has the power to propose to the Executive Branch the modification of that Executive Decree and the issuance of the necessary decrees for carrying out the functions imposed upon it by the Law and the Regulations themselves *(article 34 subsection 1)*. Finally, numeral 88 of those same Regulations defines protected varieties as those new plant varieties created or discovered, duly registered in the Register of Protected Varieties established for this purpose. It is worth highlighting that through article 1 of Executive Decree No. 31736, which came into effect on March 29, 2004, articles 60 and 61 of the Regulations to the Law of the National Seed Office were modified – among others – <u>thereby eliminating the norms referring to the obligation to regulate everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties</u> **(which was created in 1978 by Law 8269)** <u>and therefore, to the effective protection (tutela efectiva) of breeder's rights for protected varieties, which Law 6289 imposes on the ONS as one of its principal functions</u>, focusing solely on regulating the Register of Commercial Varieties *(see recitals (considerandos) 3 to 6 of Executive Decree No. 31736, in the digital version of those regulations, on the website: [www.pgr.go.cr/scij](http://www.pgr.go.cr/scij))* . At this point, it is worth highlighting that <u>not only does the Law of the National Seed Office (Law 6289) impose on the State in general, and on the ONS in particular, the effective regulation of plant variety protection rights (derechos de protección de las obtenciones vegetales)</u>, but also the following norms do: ***i)*** **The Law of Invention Patents, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models** (Law No. 6867, which came into effect on April 25, 1983), establishes in article 1 subsections 1 and 3, respectively, that *“…1.- An invention is any creation of the human intellect, capable of being applied in industry, that meets the patentability conditions provided for in this law. It may be a product, a machine, a tool, or a manufacturing process, and shall be protected by the invention patent (…) 3.- <u>Plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales) shall have protection through a special law</u>…”*; ***ii)*** The Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, specifically Annex 1 C, called **Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)**, which was approved by the Legislative Assembly through Law No. 7475, which came into effect on December 26, 1994, in whose article 1.1 states that *“Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement, provided that such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement. <u>Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice</u>”*. Likewise, it is indicated that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, <u>to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations</u> *(article 7)*. Finally, and as relevant to the specific case, numeral 8 establishes the principles that should govern domestic legislation aimed at the protection of intellectual property, in the sense that *“…Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to<u> protect public health and nutrition, or to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development</u>, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.”* ***iii)*** **The Biodiversity Law** *(Law No. 7788, which came into effect on May 27, 1998)*, which establishes that the State recognizes the existence and validity of forms of knowledge and innovation and **the need to protect them, through the use of appropriate legal mechanisms for each specific case** *(article 77)*, which translate – among other forms and with the exceptions contemplated therein – **into patents, trade secrets, plant breeder’s rights, sui generis community intellectual rights, copyright, farmers’ rights** *(article 78)*. This is because there is a public interest in guaranteeing the country and its inhabitants the right to be recipients of scientific-technical information and cooperation regarding biodiversity, as well as to have access to technology through appropriate transfer policies, including biotechnology and associated knowledge; for which reason, the State must facilitate access to the relevant technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, **without prejudice to intellectual property rights, industrial property rights, or sui generis collective intellectual rights** *(article 88)*. Despite the above, <u>the State and the National Seed Office failed to comply with the duty imposed by the Political Constitution; the TRIPS Agreement (approved by Law 7475); Laws 6289, 6867, and 7788; Executive Decree No. 12907-A, regarding regulating everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties</u>, **which was created in 1978 by Law 6289** <u>and therefore, regarding the effective protection (tutela efectiva) of breeder's rights for protected varieties, which that Law imposes on the ONS as one of its principal functions.</u> So much so, that by certification issued on March 27, 2012, the Head of the Technical Department of the National Seed Office stated that *“…according to the files and records kept by this office, the Register of Protected Varieties <u>was implemented starting from the promulgation of Law 8631 PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETIES (PROTECCIÓN DE LAS OBTENCIONES VEGETALES)</u> published in La Gaceta 56 on March 19, 2008, and its Regulations Decree No. 35677-MAG published in La Gaceta No. 6 of January 11, 2010. <u>Consequently, prior to those dates, the System for the Register of Protected Varieties had not been established</u>…”* (page 115 of the judicial file). Consequently, the right to the protection of plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales), **was not only recognized in a general manner since the promulgation of the Constitution of 1949** *(article 47)*, **and specifically since 1978 with the entry into effect of Law No. 6289** *– articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) –*, but also, **that Law established in a general manner the protection mechanisms for this right, through the creation of the Register of Protected Varieties, whose implementation was contingent upon the Executive Branch, by regulatory means and at the request of the ONS, establishing the requirements and procedure to be followed for this purpose**, which was <u>never done during the period between December 4, 1978 (date Law 6289 came into effect) and January 11, 2010 (date the Regulations to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Executive Decree No. 35677, came into effect)</u>. Quite the contrary, since through article 1 of Executive Decree No. 31736, which came into effect on March 29, 2004, articles 60 and 61 of the Regulations to the Law of the National Seed Office were modified – among others – <u>thereby eliminating the norms referring to the obligation to regulate, via regulations, everything concerning the Register of Protected Varieties</u> **(which was created in 1978 by Law 6289)**, focusing solely on regulating the Register of Commercial Varieties *(see recitals (considerandos) 3 to 6 of Executive Decree No. 31736, in the digital version of those regulations, on the website: [www.pgr.go.cr/scij](http://www.pgr.go.cr/scij))* , which is manifestly and evidently contrary to the provisions of the very law it regulates. This, despite the fact that even as of December 26, 1994, the Costa Rican State had approved through Law 7475, the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, specifically Annex 1 C, called **Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)**, and therefore, had committed itself at the international level, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1 subsection 1, 7, and 8 subsection 1 of TRIPS, to formulate and/or modify its laws and regulations, in order to effectively protect and enforce intellectual property rights, in accordance with the provisions of said Agreement *(articles 7 paragraph 1 and 48 of the Political Constitution)*.

Finally, it is necessary to highlight that <b>the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties did not repeal the provisions contained in articles 1, </b><b>8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office,</b> related to the creation and regulation of the Register of Protected Varieties and, therefore, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties. For all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that it is not only substantially contrary to the provisions of articles 7 paragraph 1, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Constitución Política; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS Agreement (Ley 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Ley 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law of Patents of Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Ley 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley 7788); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 12907-A (numerals 60 and 61 before the reform by article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); but also, <b>to the principles of logic and justice</b> <i>(article 16 subsection 1 of the General Law of Public Administration)</i>, for the defendants to allege that prior to the entry into force of both the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Law number 8631 of March 19, 2008) and the Regulations to that Law (Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677-MAG of January 11, 2010), it was not possible to receive applications aimed at the recognition of rights for the protection of plant varieties, because there was no norm that protected them, nor were there provisions regulating <b>the requirements and the procedure to follow for their possible registration in the Register of Protected Varieties, </b>not only<b> </b>because the right to the protection of plant varieties <b>had been recognized in a general manner since the enactment of the Constitución Política of 1949</b> <i>(article 47)</i>, <b>and especially since 1978 with the entry into force of Law number 6289</b> <i>-articles 1,</i> <i>8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b)-, </i><u>being reaffirmed both in 1983 with the provisions of article 1 subsections 1 and 3 of Ley 6867, and in 1998 with numerals 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law;</u> but also because, <b>in Ley 6289 itself, the protective mechanisms thereof were established generally, through the creation of the Register of Protected Varieties, whose implementation was subject to the fact that, by regulatory means and at the request of the ONS, the Executive Branch would establish the requirements and the procedure to follow for that purpose</b>, which was not done until January 11, 2010, with the entry into force of the Regulations to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677. Consequently, <b>the defendants cannot validly transfer </b>to the person requesting to be declared the breeder's right, over a seed variety they intend to be protected and registered in the respective registry-, <b>the negative effects derived from the administrative inactivity they incurred from December 4, 1978</b> (date of entry into force of Ley 6289) <b>until January 11, 2010</b> (date of entry into force of the Regulations to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677), <b>by not regulating in a prompt, complete, and lawful manner</b>, the protective mechanisms for the right to the protection of plant varieties provided for since 1978 by Ley 6289 and the Regulations to that Law, under the argument that at the time their petition was raised, no law or regulation was in force that protected the right they claim to have, as will be analyzed next in the following considering.

**I Vo.- REGARDING THE DEFECTS OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF THE CHALLENGED FORMAL CONDUCTS**. This Tribunal considers that the agreements number two, article six, of session number 609 of December 15, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September 28, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office; the memo ONS 332-2010 of December 20, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, suffer from defects of absolute nullity, for being substantially contrary to the legal system, for the reasons set forth below: <b><i>1) <u>Regarding the motive</u>. </i></b>This Tribunal considers that the motive underpinning the challenged acts is illegitimate, since it is based on "…<i><u>the legal and material impossibility of the administration to act at that time due to the lack of a law, since it was not in force at the time of submitting the note under consecutive GG-SEN-007-08, as well as the lack of regulatory normative support that would allow us to act</u> within the channels of legality derived from articles 11 of the Constitución Política and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration…" (<span class=GramE>folios</span> 67 a 74 of the judicial file; 13, 14 and 15 of the administrative file). </i>In that sense, as was analyzed in considering I II of this judgment, it is substantially contrary to the legal system for the defendants to allege that prior to the entry into force of both the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Law number 8631 of March 19, 2008) and the Regulations to that Law (Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677-MAG of January 11, 2010), it was not possible to receive applications aimed at the recognition of rights for the protection of plant varieties, because there was no norm that protected them, nor were there provisions regulating <b>the requirements and the procedure to follow for their possible registration in the Register of Protected Varieties, when, as explained supra, such regulations did exist</b> . <b><i>2) <u>Regarding the content</u>.</i></b> This Tribunal considers that the content underpinning the challenged acts is not lawful, since it is based on <i>"…In light of these provisions, emanating from the same legislative act, it can be seen that the National Seed Office was unable to grant a plant breeder's right without the specific enactment of the regulation to the law (…) The Regulation to the law was not published until January 11, 2010, so that until that date the National Seed Office was enabled to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the law and the regulation itself…" (<span class=GramE>folios</span> 10 a 14 of the administrative file). </i>In the first instance, while it is true that article 7 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Ley 8631) establishes that <i>"…</i><i><u>The procedures and general rules for the filing, publication of information on applications, granting of breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations, the processing, the technical examination, and the resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right</u>, <b>shall be established by regulation</b>. // The procedures and rules developed by regulation must include, at a minimum, the requirements that applications for obtaining a plant variety title must meet, the obligation to publish a notice of the applications filed, the opportunity for third parties to file oppositions to the applications filed, prior to their granting, and the competent body for the resolution of the procedure. Information on the breeder's rights granted and the proposed and approved denominations shall also be published."; </i>this circumstance does not imply that interested parties in having the breeder's right declared, over a seed variety they intend to be protected and registered in the respective registry, <b>could not submit the corresponding application, before the enactment of Ley 8631,</b> for the reasons already indicated in the preceding section; or, <b>in the period between the date of entry into force of Ley 8631 (March 19, 2008) and the date on which the Regulation to Ley 8631 was published and entered into force (January 11, 2010)</b>. This is because, since December 4, 1978, the National Seed Office (Ofinase) is the competent body to receive, process, and resolve applications for registration both in the Register of Commercial Varieties and in the Register of Protected Varieties, and in this latter case, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties, pursuant to the provisions of articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Ley 6289; 56 a 61 of the Regulation to Ley 6289 (both in its version prior and subsequent to the reform introduced by Decreto Ejecutivo number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); which is reaffirmed in article 5 of Ley 8631 and 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677. Consequently, the fact that <b>before the enactment of Ley 8631</b> or during <b>the period between the date of entry into force of Ley 8631 (March 19, 2008) and the date on which the Regulation to Ley 8631 was published and entered into force (January 11, 2010)</b>, the regulation that would define the procedures and general rules for filing, publication of information on applications, granting of breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations, the processing, the technical examination, and the resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right had not been issued, <u>did not prevent the filing of applications aimed at the protection of a plant variety through its registration in the Register of Protected Varieties, the effective processing of which would await the issuance of the respective regulatory norms</u>. Holding otherwise is contrary to the principles of logic and justice and to the provisions of articles 7 paragraph 1, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Constitución Política; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS Agreement (Ley 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Ley 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law of Patents of Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Ley 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley 7788), not only because it implies <b>transferring</b> <b>, as already stated, </b> to the person requesting to be declared the breeder's right, over a seed variety they intend to be protected and registered in the respective registry-, <b>the negative effects derived from the administrative inactivity they incurred from December 4, 1978</b> (date of entry into force of Ley 6289) <b>until January 11, 2010</b> (date of entry into force of the Regulations to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677), <b>by not regulating in a prompt, complete, and lawful manner</b>, the protective mechanisms for the right to the protection of plant varieties provided for since 1978 by Ley 6289 and the Regulations to that Law, reaffirmed by Ley 8631 and Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677, under the argument that at the time their petition was raised, no law or regulation was in force that protected the right they claim to have <i>(folio 1 of the administrative file)</i>; but also, because <b>it is legally their obligation to receive them and give them the respective processing,</b> even if this were subject to the issuance of the executive regulation, <b>since the ONS is the competent body to receive, process, and resolve them</b>, pursuant to the provisions of numerals 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Ley 6289; 56 a 61 of the Regulation to Ley 6289 (both in its version prior and subsequent to the reform introduced by Decreto Ejecutivo number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Ley 8631 and 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677.<u> Consequently, and in accordance with the provisions of article 288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, </u> <u>March 18, two thousand eight, is maintained as the date of filing before the National Seed Office, of the application raised by the plaintiff company, aimed at the registration of the Variedad Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties</u>, as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in memo number D.E.066-08 of March 21, two thousand eight, by informing the representative of the plaintiff company that <i>"...I acknowledge <u>receipt of your memo GG-SEN-007-08, of March 11, 2008, by which you submit a formal application for the registration of the rice variety Palmar 18, in the Register of Protected Varieties</u>…" (<span class=GramE>folio</span> 02 of the administrative file)</i>. In that sense, and as a second aspect to analyze, while it is true, <b>it was not possible to apply in the case of plant variety breeding, the procedural rules contained in articles 6 to 15 of the Law </b><b>of Patents of Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models</b> (Ley 6867), which regulate the procedure to follow when applying to patent an invention, since <i>the nature of the requirements for granting an invention patent and its subsequent registration in the registry (article 6 of Ley 6867), are different from those required to obtain the protection of a plant variety</i> (article 7 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677), so much so, that subsection 3 of article 1 of the Law of Patents of Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models itself establishes that <i>"…Plant varieties shall have protection through a special law…"; </i>it is also true that the National Seed Office, in application of the provisions of articles 39, 41 and 47 of the Constitución Política; 221 subsection 1) and 287 of the General Law of Public Administration, should have notified the plaintiff company, once the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Decreto Ejecutivo 35677) entered into force, to complete or correct it within a period of thirty working days, in accordance with the requirements provided for in numerals 7 a 11 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677, in order to establish –in the first instance– the formal examination of the petition raised. This is because, the procedure aimed at processing and resolving the application <u>raised by the plaintiff company on March eighteen, two thousand eight, in order to register the Variedad Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, was paralyzed due to causes attributable to the defendants</u>, <b>who delayed</b> <b>from December 4, 1978</b> (date of entry into force of Ley 6289) <b>until January 11, 2010</b> (date of entry into force of the Regulations to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677), in regulating the protective mechanisms for the right to the protection of plant varieties provided for since 1978 by Ley 6289 and the Regulations to that Law. So much so, that the plaintiff company itself, in the application raised on March 18, two thousand eight, aware that its application was subject to the regulation of the procedure and the establishment of requirements through that means, indicated "…<i> We appreciate in advance your valuable collaboration <u>to endorse the registration process and we request that you indicate the procedure to follow in order to complete the registration process</u>..." (<span class=GramE>folio</span> 01 of the administrative file)</i>. It is worth noting at this point, that by memo number D.E.066-08 of March 21, two thousand eight, the Executive Director of the National Seed Office himself informed the Manager of the plaintiff company that: <i>"...<u> we hope in the short term to be able to indicate the procedures and requirements that applications must meet, both in formal - administrative aspects and in technical conditions</u>. For the moment, <u>in order to advance in meeting requirements, I take the liberty of attaching the format used by the UPOV for the description of rice varieties</u>..." (<span class=GramE>folio</span> 02 of the administrative file). </i>This Tribunal considers that, by reason of the foregoing, it is contrary <b>to the principles of good faith and legitimate expectations,</b> that two years and almost nine months after the Executive Director of the ONS issued said memo, the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office denied the plaintiff company the application for registration of the Variedad Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, under the argument that "…<i>The note G-SEN-007-083) cannot be legally recognized as the filing of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title (…) By not accepting the above assumptions as valid, the consideration of retroacting events in time to proceed with a registration becomes irrelevant…", </i>since –it is insisted– in application of the provisions of articles 39, 41 and 47 of the Constitución Política; 221 subsection 1) and 287 of the General Law of Public Administration, <b>it should have notified the plaintiff company, once the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Decreto Ejecutivo 35677) entered into force, to complete or correct the application raised,</b> within a period of thirty working days, in accordance with the requirements provided for in numerals 7 a 11 of Decreto Ejecutivo 35677, in order to establish –in the first instance– the formal examination of the petition raised. <b><i>3) <u>Regarding the purpose</u>. </i></b>It should be remembered that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1, 2, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d) of the Law Creating the Seed Office; 7 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); 88 of the Biodiversity Law and 3 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, there is a public interest in guaranteeing the country and its inhabitants, to be recipients of scientific-technical information and cooperation in matters of biodiversity, as well as having access to technology through adequate transfer policies, including biotechnology and associated knowledge; for which reason, the State must facilitate access to pertinent technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, specifically regarding the activity of generating varieties by natural and legal persons, public or private, for the benefits this derives for national agricultural development and competitiveness, <b>without prejudice to intellectual property, industrial property rights, or sui generis collective intellectual rights</b>. In that sense, the challenged acts are contrary to the main purposes provided for by the legal system, in order to protect the rights of breeders of plant varieties, safeguarding the right of use by small and medium-sized farmers, by illegitimately and unjustifiably rejecting the application raised by the plaintiff company aimed at the registration of the variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties.

<b><i><span style='color:#010101'>4) Corollary.</span></i></b> For all the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that: <b><i>i) </i></b>The <span style='color:#010101'>agreement number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas); and Official Letter ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas), suffer from defects of absolute nullity (vicios de nulidad absoluta), for being substantially contrary to the legal system, specifically to the provisions of Articles 7 paragraph 1, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of TRIPS (Law 7475); 1, </span>8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Law 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law of Patents of Invention, Drawings and Industrial Models and Utility Models (Law 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Law 7788); 11, 16 subsection 1), <span style='color:#010101'>131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, </span>221 subsection 1), 287 and <span style='color:#010101'>288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)</span>; 5, 7 and 12 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Law 8631); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Executive Decree number 12907-A <i>(numerals 60 and 61 before the reform by Article 1 of Executive Decree 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); </i>4, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG and the principles of justice, logic, good faith and legitimate expectations (buena fe y confianza legítima); <b><i>ii) </i></b><span style='color:#010101'>In accordance with the provisions of numerals </span>1,<span style='color:#010101'> </span>8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Law 6289;<span style='color:#010101'> 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior and subsequent to the reform introduced by Executive Decree number </span>31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Law <span style='color:#010101'>8631 and 4 of Executive Decree 35677-MAG; 288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), <u>March 18, two thousand eight, is maintained as the date of filing before the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas), of the application filed by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of the Variety Palmar 18 in the Register of Protected Varieties, as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight</u>; <b><i>iii)</i></b> Consequently and in accordance with Articles 7 and 12 of Law 8631, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, </span>221 subsection 1), and 287 <span style='color:#010101'>subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas) is ordered to initiate the processing of the application filed by the plaintiff company on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, in accordance with the procedure established in Articles 11 to 24 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, </span>221 subsection 1), so that it may rule as appropriate in law."<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> Consequently, as there was no testimonial, confessional, or expert evidence to be taken and pursuant to the provisions of article 98.2 of the same Code, it declared this matter to be one of pure law and the parties submitted their conclusions orally *(see folios 118 and 120 of the judicial file and digital backup of the preliminary hearing)*.

**6.-** **That this matter was referred to the Reporting Judge of the Sixth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal,** **on August seventeenth, two thousand twelve** *(folio 120 vuelto of the judicial file).* In the proceedings before this Tribunal, no nullities have been observed that must be corrected or that cause defenselessness, and **the judgment is issued within the term established in articles 98 subsection 2) of the C**ontentious-Administrative Procedural Code, in relation to subsection 4) of article 82 of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of this Jurisdiction.- ***Drafted by Judge Álvarez Molina, with the affirmative vote of Judge Abarca Gómez and Judge Conejo Cantillo; and,*** **WHEREAS:** **Io.- PROVEN FACTS:** The following relevant facts for this process are deemed duly accredited: **1)** That on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, the motion filed by the plaintiff company was received at the National Seed Office, according to which, *"...By virtue of the fact that the Plant Breeders' Rights Law was recently approved in the second reading and in the near future will be published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, we hereby submit the formal application for the registration of the variety Palmar 18 in the Protected Varieties Registry. Taking as reference the document issued by the National Seed Office called 'Certificate of Registration of Commercial Varieties' (AR-023-105), it is recorded that the variety Palmar 18 was registered on June 4, 2007. With what is indicated in the document, it is validated that the variety Palmar 18 has been on the national market for less than a year, therefore it meets the requirement of 'novelty' established in the Plant Breeders' Rights Law. We thank you in advance for your valuable collaboration to endorse the registration process and we request that you indicate the procedure to follow in order to finalize the registration process..." (folio 01 of the administrative file)*; **2)** That the Plant Breeders' Rights Law (number 8631), was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 56 of March nineteenth, two thousand eight and entered into force on that same date *(see digital file of Ley 8631 on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij)*; **3)** That by official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight, the Executive Director of the National Seed Office communicated to the Manager of the plaintiff company that: *"...I acknowledge receipt of your letter GG-SEN-007-08, of March 11, 2008, by which you submit a formal application for the registration of the rice variety Palmar 18, in the Protected Varieties Registry. In this regard, I inform you that the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights was indeed recently approved by the Legislative Assembly on February 28 of this year and published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 56 on March 19 last. Regarding your application, I must refer to article 7 of the Law, which establishes that the procedures and general rules for the filing, processing, technical examination, and resolution of applications for granting the breeder's right, among others, shall be established by regulation. We are currently dedicated to drafting a proposed Regulation to this Law for its decree by the Executive Branch, which is responsible for its approval, and we hope in the short term to be able to indicate the procedures and requirements that applications must meet, both in formal-administrative aspects and in technical conditions. For the moment, in order to advance in meeting requirements, I am attaching the format used by UPOV for the description of rice varieties..." (folio 02 of the administrative file)*; **4)** That the Regulation to the Plant Breeders' Rights Law (Executive Decree number 35677), was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 6 of January eleventh, two thousand ten and entered into force on that same date *(see digital file of Executive Decree number 35677 on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij)*; **5)** That by official letter number ONS 065-2010 DT of November 30, two thousand ten, an official of the ONC's Rice Seed Program communicated –in what is relevant– to the plaintiff company that *“…in the event that the date of receipt of the letter GG-SEN-007-08 could be granted as the filing date of an application for protection of the plant breeder's rights over the variety Palmar 18, which is under legal consultation, we would not have affected the rights of Nombre143465 by accepting the application of (…), since in any case your represented party could charge fees for the use of the variety a posteriori. In the case of a resolution granting plant breeder's rights in favor of Nombre143465, we will gladly be communicating the quantity of seeds that will be certified to Mr. (…)” (folios 04 and 05 of the administrative file)*; **6)** That by official letter number SEN-GG-036-10 of November thirtieth, two thousand ten, received at the National Seed Office on December second, two thousand ten, the plaintiff company requested *"...we beg that my represented party be summoned to present the requirements that are necessary in order to proceed with the registration process of the rice variety Palmar 18 in the Protected Varieties Registry kept by OFINASE for this purpose..." (folios 06 and 07 of the administrative file);* **7)** That by official letter number ONS 310-10 D.E. of December first, two thousand eleven, the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, submitted a consultation to the Legal Advisor of that body, in the sense that: *“…a) Can the date of receipt of letter GG-SEN-007-08 be legally recognized as the date of presentation of the application? b) Can the date of registration of the variety in the Commercial Registry be taken as a reference to consider the condition of novelty? (…) c) … Could the date on which the ONS received letter GG-SEN-007-08 be recognized as the day of presentation of the application for protection that the interested company would be processing and submitting in the coming days, arguing that once Ley 8631 was approved in the second legislative reading, the application has legal support and should have been attended to, even though the Law had not yet been published (which occurred until March 19, 2008) and that, of course, no regulation to the Law existed?...” (folios 08 and 09 of the administrative file)*; **8)** That by a writing dated December 13, two thousand ten, received at the ONS on December 17 of the same year, the Legal Advisor discharged the consultation raised by the Executive Director of the ONS, in the sense that: *“…1) Note G-SEN-007-08 cannot be legally recognized as the filing of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title. 2) The date of registration of the variety in the Commercial Registry cannot be taken as a reference to consider novelty. 3) By not accepting the previous assumptions as valid, the consideration of retroactively bringing the facts back in time to proceed with a registration becomes irrelevant…”*. This because, in general terms, she considered: *“…In light of these provisions, emanating from the same legislative act, it can be seen that the National Seed Office was unable to grant a plant breeder's right without the specific promulgation of the regulation to the law (…) The Regulation to the law was not published until January 11, 2010, meaning that until that date the National Seed Office was enabled to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the law and the regulation itself…” (folios 10 to 12 of the administrative file)*; **9)** That by agreement 2, article 6, adopted at session 609 held on December fifteenth, two thousand ten, the Board of Directors of the ONS resolved: *“…The criteria and conclusion of the legal advisory of this Office are accepted regarding the request of the company SENUMISA, in the sense that: 1) Note G-SEN-007-08 cannot be legally recognized as the filing of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title. 2) The date of registration of the variety in the Commercial Registry cannot be taken as a reference to consider novelty. 3) By not accepting the previous assumptions as valid, the consideration of retroactively bringing the facts back in time to proceed with a registration becomes irrelevant. The Administration is instructed to communicate the resolution to the company Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A.…” (folio 15 of the administrative file);* **10)** That by official letter number ONS-332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, communicated to the plaintiff company that *“…I am writing in response to your letter SEN-GG 036-10, regarding the application for protection of the variety Palmar 18 in favor of your represented party (…) We regret that, in this particular case and given the circumstances in which it was presented, it is not feasible to process what was requested by your represented party (…) It should be noted that the regulation to the Law was published in the Official Gazette until January 11, 2010. Thus, it is only as of that date that the Office was enabled to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the Law and the Regulation. Although the initial response note reflects the good disposition to attend to your application, at the time it was filed we could not proceed with the processing, since we did not have all the regulatory instruments required to formalize the application. Finally, I must indicate to you that, given the relevance of the case, this matter has been addressed within our Board of Directors, which agreed to accept the criteria and conclusion of our legal advisory…” (folios 13 and 14 of the administrative file);* **11)** That by agreement 2, article 6, adopted at session 616 held on September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, the Board of Directors of the ONS resolved: *“…TO CLARIFY AGREEMENT TWO, ARTICLE SIX, MINUTES OF SESSION NUMBER SIX HUNDRED NINE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER FIFTEENTH, TWO THOUSAND TEN, said agreement being supported by the legal arguments contained in the opinion of the Legal Advisory that were accepted in those minutes…”*. This because it was deemed –in general terms– that: *“…the opinion of the legal advisor on the point referred to that note initially presented by Nombre143465 cannot be legally recognized as the filing of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title, represents the legal basis and the reason for this position. That is to say, it responds to the legal and material impossibility of the administration to act at that time due to lack of law, since it was not in force at the time of presenting the note under the consecutive number GG-SEN-007-08, as well as the lack of regulatory normative support that would allow us to act within the channels of legality derived from articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration…” (folios 67 to 74 of the judicial file);* **12)** That by certification issued on March twenty-seventh, two thousand twelve, the Head of the Technical Department of the National Seed Office, certified that *“…according to the files and records kept by this office, the Protected Varieties Registry was implemented as of the promulgation of Ley 8631 PROTECTION OF PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS published in La Gaceta 56 on March 19, 2008 and its Regulation Decree No. 35677-MAG published in La Gaceta No. 6 of January 11, 2010. Consequently, prior to those dates, the System for the Protected Varieties Registry had not been established…” (folio 115 of the judicial file)*.

**IIo.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.** The **plaintiff party** considers that in accordance with the provisions of articles 1, 8, 10, 15 subsections c) and d), and 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Ley número 6289 of December 4, 1978); 9, 34 subsection a), 60, and 61 of the Regulation to that Law, the National Seed Office had the scope and powers to make effective the Plant Variety Protection and Plant Breeders' Rights clearly defined; therefore, in its view, it fell upon it since 1978, not only to open a Protected Varieties Registry, in order to protect the rights of those who register new varieties, created or discovered, but also, to establish the requirements and procedure necessary for this purpose. Due to the foregoing, it considers that since 1978 it has a right to protect intellectual property regarding plant breeders' rights, which was reinforced as of March 19, two thousand eight, the date of entry into force of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley número 8631). That this right is also based on the provisions of articles 47 of the Political Constitution, 1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Annex 1 C of the WTO Agreement, approved by Costa Rica through Ley 7475, which entered into force on December 26, 1994); 77, 78, and 88 of the Biodiversity Law; and the Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties, published in La Gaceta number 83 of April 30, two thousand eight. Due to the foregoing, it considers the challenged acts to be contrary to the provisions of articles 131, 132, and 133 of the General Law of Public Administration, since in its view, it is substantially contrary to the legal system to reject the application filed as of March 18, two thousand eight, so that the Palmar 18 Variety would be registered in the Protected Varieties Registry, under the argument that at the time of its presentation before the ONS, not only had the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley número 8631) not entered into force, but in addition, the executive regulation to that law had not yet been issued, in which not only the requirements but also the procedure to be applied had to be established, in order to determine the admissibility or not of the applications filed for the protection of plant breeders' rights. In that sense, it maintains that the ONS should have considered that administrative regulations must be interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the fulfillment of the public purpose to which they are directed, so that if the day after its represented party submitted its application for registration of the Palmar 18 Variety, there was already a norm declaring the activity of generating varieties to be of national interest and another norm establishing its competence to receive, process, and resolve applications, then it should have considered that waiting for a regulation to exist to determine whether or not the granting of a registration of this type was appropriate in no way satisfied the public purpose of benefiting agricultural development and competitiveness. Therefore, it estimates that in the absence of said regulation, it should have integrated the existing norms at the time of submitting the application, or else, straighten the procedures with the regulation that had already been issued. Due to the foregoing, it considers it improper that three years after the application was submitted for the registration of the Palmar 18 variety in the Protected Varieties Registry, the ONS decided to reject it under the argument that at the time of its filing, it did not have the regulatory tools to process it, even though in its view, the right to obtain protection for the breeder of a plant variety, provided for in the Political Constitution, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; the Biodiversity Law, and the Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties, is of immediate application and does not require a law to produce its effects. In addition to the foregoing, it considers it improper that its application be rejected under the argument that at the time of its filing, the regulation that, in accordance with article 7 of Ley 8631, had to be issued to regulate the procedures and general rules for the filing, processing, and resolution of applications for the granting of plant breeder's rights had not yet been issued, when the Executive Branch took almost two years to issue the executive regulation to Ley 8631, therefore, it alleges it is improper that the negative consequences of that delay be attributed to its represented party, as constitutional jurisprudence has held in similar cases *(judgment 1900-1463 of fourteen hours thirty minutes of October thirtieth, nineteen ninety)*. Consequently, it considers that the breaches incurred by the ONS produced an unlawful injury both to the plaintiff company and to the public interest. For their part, the **representatives of the State and of the National Seed Office** maintain that: **a)** The grounds for the act are fully formed, since the factual background consists of the premature filing of the application, whose recognition is sought in this matter. They highlight that the plaintiff made its motion prior to the publication of the Law in La Gaceta, a situation which, in their view, shows that the regulatory body on which the plaintiff intends to base its right was not yet effective. Due to the foregoing, they consider that granting what the plaintiff petitioned would be contrary to the provisions of articles 11 and 129 of the Political Constitution, and 7 of the Civil Code, since at the time the motion was filed, the norm on which it is based had not yet come into legal existence; **b)** They allege that Ley 8631 itself imposed an additional limitation, since numeral 7 subjects all procedures, processes, examinations, and resolutions in the matter of granting plant breeder's rights to the regulatory norm, which did not exist at the time the application was filed. They believe that this circumstance denies any possibility that, through interpretation or integration, any dependency or instance of the ONS could arrogate powers to set the parameters intended to obtain protection in this matter, because there is a clear regulatory reservation given by law. Likewise, they allege that the effectiveness of a law begins with its publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, therefore, its application and interpretation can occur after that moment and not before, as the plaintiff wrongly intends; **c)** They indicate that no adverse effect can arise for the plaintiff company due to the time elapsed to issue the Regulation to Ley 8631, since it made its motion prematurely and for this reason it was rejected. That is, they maintain that regardless of the moment in which the regulatory body under analysis was issued, the motion subject to litigation was going to be denied, so the reasonableness and proportionality of the period for issuing the Regulation to Ley 8631 cannot constitute a reason for the nullity of the challenged acts, not only because this aspect is not discussed and should not be discussed in this process, but also because the aspects to be regulated required in-depth analysis and, therefore, the time elapsed until the issuance of the Regulation responds to the technical nature of the matter and the effective protection that must be provided to each physical or legal person seeking the granting of a plant breeder's right; **d)** Lastly, the representative of the State alleges that the plaintiff omitted to indicate what the claimed injuries consist of and their quantification. Due to the foregoing, it believes it is in a total state of defenselessness, as it is unaware of the type of injury, what it consists of, and its quantification, a circumstance that entails the material impossibility of defense. However, it indicates that if it is considered that there is any injury that must be compensated, the ONS has its own budget and therefore, the imposition of the items to be paid should fall on it, in accordance with what was resolved by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgment number 1360-F-S1-2010 of ten hours twenty-five minutes of November eleventh, two thousand ten.

**IIIo.- ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS, PRIOR TO LEY # 8631 AND THE MECHANISMS FOR ITS SAFEGUARD PROVIDED FOR IN LEY # 6289.** While it is true, in accordance with the 1st paragraph of article 129 of the Political Constitution, laws are obligatory and take effect from the day they designate and, failing this requirement, ten days after their publication in the Official Gazette; it is also true that the 2nd paragraph of that same numeral establishes that **no one may claim ignorance of the law**.

In that sense and contrary to what the representatives of the State and the National Seed Office maintain, the recognition of the right to the protection of plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales) does not originate with the entry into force on March 19, 2008, of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (number 8631), but rather has its genesis in Article 47 of the Political Constitution itself, which establishes “…Every author, inventor, producer or merchant shall temporarily enjoy the exclusive property of their work, invention, trademark, or trade name, in accordance with the law…”. Now then, given that the constituent power delegates the regulation of that right to the legislator, through the Law of the National Seed Office (Ley 6289), which entered into force on December 4, 1978, it created the ONS as an organ of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock with independence in its operational functioning and with its own legal personality in its administration, which shall be responsible for the promotion and protection, improvement, control, and use of superior quality seeds (Article 1). To that end, the ONS must maintain –among other aspects– a registry of commercial varieties, with recommendations or restrictions on their use, as well as a registry of protected varieties; as well as, establish the norms and controls for the production of the rights of the breeder of new varieties -Articles 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d)-. To fulfill this last aspect, the National Seed Office, through the regulation of Ley 6289, shall set the conditions that must be met to obtain the titles of seed producer, as well as their different categories, rights, and obligations. Likewise, it shall regulate commerce among producers, processors, and merchants in general, to guarantee the quality of the seeds, for which purpose a registry shall be established that will authorize whoever registers to trade in seeds –Articles 10, 20 subsections a) and b)-. In that sense, the Regulation to the Law of the National Seed Office (Decreto Ejecutivo number 12907-A, which entered into force on September 21, 1981), established in Articles 60 and 61 –respectively– that the ONS shall open a Registry of Protected Varieties where new varieties, created or discovered, shall be registered; and that registration in the Registry of Protected Varieties shall be done according to the requirements established for that purpose by the National Seed Office in due course. This is because the ONS has the power to propose to the Executive Branch the modification of that Decreto Ejecutivo and the issuance of the decrees necessary for carrying out the functions imposed on it by the Law and the Regulation itself (Article 34 subsection 1). Finally, numeral 88 of that same Regulation defines protected varieties as those new plant varieties created or discovered duly registered in the Registry of Protected Varieties established for that purpose. It is worth highlighting that through Article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004, Articles 60 and 61 of the Regulation to the Law of the National Seed Office were modified –among others– thereby eliminating the norms referring to the obligation to regulate everything concerning the Registry of Protected Varieties (which was created since 1978 by Ley 6289) and therefore, the effective protection of the rights of the breeder of protected varieties, which Ley 6289 imposes on the ONS as one of its main functions, focusing solely on regulating the Registry of Commercial Varieties (see recitals 3 to 6 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 31736, in the digital version of that regulation, on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij). At this point, it is worth highlighting that not only the Law of the National Seed Office (Ley 6289) imposes on the State in general and on the ONS in particular, the effective regulation of the rights for the protection of plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales), but also, the following norms: i) The Law of Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law number 6867, which entered into force on April 25, 1983), establishes in Article 1 subsections 1 and 3, respectively, that “…1.- An invention is any creation of the human intellect, capable of being applied in industry, that meets the conditions of patentability provided for in this law. It may be a product, a machine, a tool, or a manufacturing process and shall be protected by the invention patent (…) 3.- Plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales) shall have protection through a special law…”; ii) The Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, specifically Annex 1 C, called the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was approved by the Legislative Assembly through Law number 7475, which entered into force on December 26, 1994, in whose Article 1.1 that “Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement, provided that such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement. Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice”. Likewise, it is indicated that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations (Article 7). Finally, and that which is of interest for the specific case, numeral 8 establishes the principles that should govern internal legislation aimed at the protection of intellectual property, in the sense that “…Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.” iii) The Biodiversity Law (Law number 7788, which entered into force on May 27, 1998), which establishes that the State recognizes the existence and validity of forms of knowledge and innovation and the need to protect them, through the use of appropriate legal mechanisms for each specific case (Article 77), which translate –among other forms and with the exceptions contemplated therein– into patents, trade secrets, plant breeder's rights, sui generis community intellectual rights, copyright, farmers' rights (Article 78). This is because there is a public interest in guaranteeing the country and its inhabitants are recipients of scientific-technical information and cooperation regarding biodiversity, as well as having access to technology through adequate transfer policies, including biotechnology and associated knowledge; reason for which, the State shall facilitate access to pertinent technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, without prejudice to intellectual property rights, industrial property rights, or sui generis collective intellectual rights (Article 88). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State and the National Seed Office failed to comply with the duty imposed by the Political Constitution; the TRIPS Agreement (approved by Ley 7475); Leyes 6289, 6867 and 7788; the Decreto Ejecutivo number 12907-A, relative to regulating everything concerning the Registry of Protected Varieties, which was created since 1978 by Ley 6289 and therefore, to the effective protection of the rights of the breeder of protected varieties, which that Law imposes on the ONS as one of its main functions. So much so, that by certification issued on March 27, 2012, the Head of the Technical Department of the National Seed Office, recorded that “…according to the files and records maintained by this office, the Registry of Protected Varieties was implemented upon the enactment of Law 8631 PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETIES published in Gazette 56 on March 19, 2008 and its Regulation Decreto Nº 35677-MAG published in Gazette Nº6 on January 11, 2010. Consequently, prior to said dates the System for the Registry of Protected Varieties had not been established…” (folio 115 of the judicial file). Consequently, the right to the protection of plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales) was not only recognized generally since the enactment of the 1949 Constitution (Article 47), and especially since 1978 with the entry into force of Law number 6289 -Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b)-, but also, in said Law the mechanisms for its protection were generally established, through the creation of the Registry of Protected Varieties, whose implementation was contingent upon the Executive Branch, by regulatory means and at the request of the ONS, establishing the requirements and the procedure to follow for that purpose, which was never done during the period from December 4, 1978 (date of entry into force of Ley 6289) to January 11, 2010 (date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677). Rather, quite the opposite, since through Article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004, Articles 60 and 61 of the Regulation to the Law of the National Seed Office were modified –among others– thereby eliminating the norms referring to the obligation to regulate, by regulatory means, everything concerning the Registry of Protected Varieties (which was created since 1978 by Ley 6289) focusing solely on regulating the Registry of Commercial Varieties (see recitals 3 to 6 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 31736, in the digital version of that regulation, on the website: www.pgr.go.cr/scij), which is contrary to the provisions of the very law it regulates, in a manifest and evident manner. The foregoing, despite the fact that even since December 26, 1994, the Costa Rican State had approved through Ley 7475, the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, specifically Annex 1 C, called the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and therefore, had committed at the international level, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS Agreement, to formulate and/or modify its laws and regulations, in order to effectively protect and enforce intellectual property rights, in accordance with the provisions of said Agreement (Article 7 paragraph 1 and 48 of the Political Constitution). Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties did not repeal the provisions contained in Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office, related to the creation and regulation of the Registry of Protected Varieties and therefore, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties. For all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that not only is it substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 7 paragraph 1, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS Agreement (Ley 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Ley 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law of Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models and Utility Models (Ley 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley 7788); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 12907-A (numerals 60 and 61 before the reform by Article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); but also, to the principles of logic and justice (Article 16 subsection 1 of the General Law of Public Administration), that the defendants allege that prior to the entry into force of both the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Law number 8631 of March 19, 2008) and the Regulation to that Law (Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677-MAG of January 11, 2010), it was not possible to receive applications seeking the recognition of rights for the protection of plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales), because there was no norm that protected them, nor provisions that regulated the requirements and the procedure to follow for their possible registration in the Registry of Protected Varieties, not only because the right to the protection of plant varieties was recognized generally since the enactment of the Political Constitution of 1949 (Article 47), and especially since 1978 with the entry into force of Law number 6289 -Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b)-, reaffirmed both in 1983 with the provisions of Article 1 subsections 1 and 3 of Ley 6867, and in 1998 with numerals 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law; but also because, in Ley 6289 itself, the mechanisms for its protection were generally established, through the creation of the Registry of Protected Varieties, whose implementation was contingent upon the Executive Branch, by regulatory means and at the request of the ONS, establishing the requirements and the procedure to follow for that purpose, which was not done until January 11, 2010, with the entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677. Consequently, the defendants cannot validly transfer to whoever requests to be declared the right of breeder, over a seed variety they intend to have protected and registered in the respective registry-, the negative effects derived from the administrative inactivity they incurred from December 4, 1978 (date of entry into force of Ley 6289) until January 11, 2010 (date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677), by not regulating in a timely, complete, and lawful manner, the protection mechanisms for the right to the protection of plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales) provided since 1978 by Ley 6289 and its Regulation, under the argument that at the time their request was made, no law or regulation was in force that protected the right they claim to have, as will be discussed next in the following recital.

**IV.- REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY VICES OF THE CHALLENGED FORMAL CONDUCTS**. This Tribunal considers that agreement number two, article six, of session number 609 of December 15, 2010, and agreement number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September 28, 2011, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office; the Official Communication ONS 332-2010 of December 20, 2010, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, suffer from vices of absolute nullity, for being substantially contrary to the legal system, for the reasons set forth below: **1) Regarding the motive**. This Tribunal considers that the motive supporting the challenged acts is illegitimate, since it is based on “…the legal and material impossibility of the administration to act at that moment due to lack of law, since it was not in force at the time of presenting the note under consecutive number GG-SEN-007-08, as well as the lack of regulatory normative support that would allow us to act within the channels of legality derived from Articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration…” (folios 67 to 74 of the judicial file; 13, 14 and 15 of the administrative file). In that sense, as was discussed in Recital III of this judgment, it is substantially contrary to the legal system that the defendants allege that prior to the entry into force of both the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Law number 8631 of March 19, 2008) and the Regulation to that Law (Decreto Ejecutivo number 35677-MAG of January 11, 2010), it was not possible to receive applications seeking the recognition of rights for the protection of plant varieties (obtenciones vegetales), because there was no norm that protected them, nor provisions that regulated the requirements and the procedure to follow for their possible registration in the Registry of Protected Varieties, when, as explained supra, such regulations did exist. **2) In relation to the content.** This Tribunal considers that the content supporting the challenged acts is not lawful, since it is based on “…In light of these provisions, emanating from the legislative act itself, it can be appreciated that the National Seed Office was prevented from granting a plant breeder's right without the specific enactment of the regulation to the law (…) The Regulation to the law was not published until January 11, 2010, so that only as of that date was the National Seed Office enabled to receive applications under the conditions and requirements established by the law and the regulation itself…” (folios 10 to 14 of the administrative file). In the first instance, while it is true that Article 7 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Ley 8631), establishes that “…The procedures and general norms for the filing, publication of information on applications, grants of breeder's rights and proposed and approved denominations, the processing, technical examination, and resolution of applications for the grant of the breeder's right, shall be established by regulation. // The procedures and norms developed by regulation must include, at a minimum, the requirements that applications must meet to obtain the title of plant variety (obtención vegetal), the obligation to publish a notice of the applications filed, the opportunity for third parties to file oppositions to the applications submitted, prior to their granting, and the competent body for resolving the procedure. Information on the breeder's rights granted and the proposed and approved denominations shall also be published.”; this circumstance does not imply that interested parties seeking to be declared the right of breeder, over a seed variety they intend to have protected and registered in the respective registry, could not submit the corresponding application, before the enactment of Ley 8631, for the reasons already indicated in the preceding section; or else, in the period between the date of entry into force of Ley 8631 (March 19, 2008) and the date on which the Regulation to Ley 8631 was published and entered into force (January 11, 2010).

This is because, since December 4, 1978, the National Seeds Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas, Ofinase) has been the competent body to receive, process, and resolve applications for registration in both the Commercial Varieties Registry and the Protected Varieties Registry, and in the latter case, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Law 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the reform introduced by Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); which is reaffirmed in Article 5 of Law 8631 and 4 of Executive Decree 35677. Consequently, the fact that before the enactment of Law 8631 or during the period between the date of entry into force of Law 8631 (March 19, 2008) and the date on which the Regulation to Law 8631 was published and entered into force (January 11, 2010), the regulation that would define the procedures and general rules for the submission, publication of information on applications, granting of breeder's rights and the proposed and approved denominations, the processing, technical examination, and resolution of applications for the granting of the breeder's right had not been issued, did not prevent the submission of applications seeking the protection of a plant variety through its registration in the Protected Varieties Registry, the effective processing of which would be held pending the issuance of the respective regulatory provisions. To hold otherwise is contrary to the principles of logic and justice and to the provisions of Articles 7 paragraph 1, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS Agreement (Law 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seeds Office (Law 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Law 7788), not only because it implies passing on, as already stated, to the person requesting the declaration of the breeder's right over a seed variety they seek to have protected and registered in the respective registry, the negative effects derived from the administrative inactivity incurred from December 4, 1978 (date of entry into force of Law 6289) until January 11, 2010 (date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights, Executive Decree number 35677), by failing to regulate promptly, fully, and in accordance with the law, the mechanisms for safeguarding the right to the protection of plant breeders' rights provided for since 1978 by Law 6289 and the Regulation to that Law, reaffirmed by Law 8631 and Executive Decree number 35677, under the argument that at the time it filed its petition, no law or regulation was in force that protected the right it claims to have (folio 1 of the administrative file); but also because legally it is its obligation to receive them to give them the respective processing, even though this was subject to the issuance of the executive regulation, since the ONS is the competent body to receive, process, and resolve them, pursuant to the provisions of numerals 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Law 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the reform introduced by Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Law 8631 and 4 of Executive Decree 35677. Consequently and in accordance with the provisions of Article 288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, March 18, two thousand eight, is maintained as the date of submission before the National Seeds Office of the application filed by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of the Palmar 18 Variety in the Protected Varieties Registry, as the National Seeds Office itself had already considered in official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight, when informing the representative of the plaintiff company that "...I acknowledge receipt of your letter GG-SEN-007-08, of March 11, 2008, through which you formally submit an application for the registration of the rice variety Palmar 18, in the Protected Varieties Registry…" (folio 02 of the administrative file). In this sense, and as a second aspect to analyze, while it is true that it was not possible to apply, in the case of plant breeders' rights, the procedural rules contained in Articles 6 to 15 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law 6867), which regulate the procedure to be followed when applying to patent an invention, since the nature of the requirements for granting a patent for invention and its subsequent registration in the registry (Article 6 of Law 6867) is different from those required to obtain the protection of a plant variety (Article 7 of Executive Decree 35677), as evidenced by the fact that subsection 3 of Article 1 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models itself establishes that “…Plant breeders' rights shall have protection through a special law…”; it is also true that the National Seeds Office, in application of the provisions of Articles 39, 41, and 47 of the Political Constitution; 221 subsection 1) and 287 of the General Law of Public Administration, should have notified the plaintiff company, once the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Executive Decree 35677) entered into force, to complete or correct it within a period of thirty business days, in accordance with the requirements set forth in numerals 7 to 11 of Executive Decree 35677, in order to establish – in the first instance – the formal examination of the filed petition. This is because the procedure aimed at processing and resolving the application filed by the plaintiff company on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, to register the Palmar 18 Variety in the Protected Varieties Registry, was halted for reasons attributable to the defendants, who delayed from December 4, 1978 (date of entry into force of Law 6289) until January 11, 2010 (date of entry into force of the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights, Executive Decree number 35677), in regulating the mechanisms for safeguarding the right to the protection of plant breeders' rights provided for since 1978 by Law 6289 and the Regulation to that Law. This is so evident that the plaintiff company itself, in the application filed on March 18, two thousand eight, aware that its application was subject to the regulation of the procedure and the establishment of the requirements thereby, stated “… We thank you in advance for your valuable collaboration to endorse the registration process and we request that you indicate the procedure to follow in order to complete the registration process..." (folio 01 of the administrative file). It is worth noting at this point, that by official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight, the Executive Director of the National Seeds Office himself informed the Manager of the plaintiff company that: "... we hope in the short term to be able to indicate the procedures and requirements that applications must meet, both in formal - administrative aspects and in technical conditions. For the moment, in order to advance in the fulfillment of requirements, I take the liberty of attaching the format used by UPOV for the description of rice varieties..." (folio 02 of the administrative file). This Court considers that, by reason of the foregoing, it is contrary to the principles of good faith and legitimate expectations, that almost two years and nine months after the Executive Director of the ONS issued said official letter, the Board of Directors of the National Seeds Office denied the plaintiff company the application for registration of the Palmar 18 Variety in the Protected Varieties Registry, under the argument that “…Note G-SEN-007-083) cannot be legally recognized as the submission of an application to obtain a plant breeder's title (…) As the above assumptions are not accepted as valid, the consideration of retroacting the facts in time to proceed with a registration becomes irrelevant…”, given that – it is insisted – in application of the provisions of Articles 39, 41, and 47 of the Political Constitution; 221 subsection 1) and 287 of the General Law of Public Administration, it should have notified the plaintiff company, once the Regulation to the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Executive Decree 35677) entered into force, to complete or correct the filed application, within a period of thirty business days, in accordance with the requirements set forth in numerals 7 to 11 of Executive Decree 35677, in order to establish – in the first instance – the formal examination of the filed petition. 3) Regarding the purpose. It should be recalled that in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d) of the Law Creating the Seeds Office; 7 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); 88 of the Biodiversity Law and 3 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights, there is a public interest in guaranteeing the country and its inhabitants to be recipients of scientific-technical information and cooperation on biodiversity matters, as well as having access to technology through adequate transfer policies, including biotechnology and associated knowledge; reason why the State must facilitate access to pertinent technologies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, specifically regarding the activity of generating varieties by natural and legal persons, public or private, due to the benefits this derives for national agricultural development and competitiveness, without prejudice to intellectual or industrial property rights or sui generis collective intellectual rights. In this sense, the challenged acts are contrary to the main purposes provided for by the legal system, to protect the rights of breeders of plant varieties, safeguarding the right of use by small and medium farmers, by illegitimately and unjustifiably rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff company seeking the registration of the Palmar 18 variety in the Protected Varieties Registry. 4) Corollary. For all the foregoing, this Court finds that: i) Agreement number two, article six, of session number 609 of December fifteenth, two thousand ten, and agreement number two, article six of ordinary session number 616 of September twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seeds Office; and Official Letter ONS 332-2010 of December twentieth, two thousand ten, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seeds Office, suffer from absolute nullity defects, for being substantially contrary to the legal system, specifically to the provisions of Articles 7 paragraph 1, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS Agreement (Law 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seeds Office (Law 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Law 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Law 7788); 11, 16 subsection 1), 131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, 221 subsection 1), 287 and 288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration; 5, 7 and 12 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Law 8631); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Executive Decree number 12907-A (numerals 60 and 61 before the reform by Article 1 of Executive Decree 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 4, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG and the principles of justice, logic, good faith, and legitimate expectations; ii) In accordance with the provisions of numerals 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Law 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Law 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the reform introduced by Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Law 8631 and 4 of Executive Decree 35677-MAG; 288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, March 18, two thousand eight, is maintained as the date of submission before the National Seeds Office of the application filed by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of the Palmar 18 Variety in the Protected Varieties Registry, as the National Seeds Office itself had already considered in official letter number D.E.066-08 of March twenty-first, two thousand eight; iii) Consequently and in accordance with Articles 7 and 12 of Law 8631, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), and 287 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, the National Seeds Office is ordered to begin processing the application filed by the plaintiff company on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, according to the procedure established in Articles 11 to 24 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), in order to resolve what is legally appropriate.

Vo.- ON THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED IN ABSTRACT. While it is true that subsection m, sub-subsection iii of Article 122 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code establishes the possibility for the Court to order the payment of damages in abstract, when their existence and amount are not established, provided they are a consequence of the administrative conduct or legal relationship that is the object of the lawsuit; it is also true that this does not have the power to undermine the obligation established in Article 58 subsection 1.e) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, that when damages are accessorily claimed – as in this case – the reason that originates them, what they consist of, and their prudential estimate must be specified. In the specific case, the plaintiff company merely indicated that the damages it claims in abstract derive from the challenged administrative inactivity (folio 18 of the judicial file), however, it did not indicate what they consist of, nor did it estimate them in a prudential manner, a circumstance which, as the representative of the State indicates, places the defendants in a state of defenselessness, given that – in principle – the omission in determining these aspects prevents establishing whether the alleged existence and amount of the claimed damages are, or are not, a consequence of the conduct that is the object of the lawsuit. However, it is necessary to clarify that contrary to what the plaintiff company affirms, the object of the proceeding essentially consists of the formal conduct issued by the ONS and not an administrative inactivity in the strict sense, given that the ONS based the rejection of the application filed on March eighteenth, two thousand eight, on an alleged absence of legal norms that, in the first instance, supported the petition filed by the plaintiff company, and secondly, on the non-existence of a regulation governing the procedure and requirements for attending to its application. However, and contrary to what the plaintiff company affirms, it is not evident from the evidence adduced to the file that the damages whose condemnation in abstract it seeks are a consequence of the administrative conduct that is the object of the proceeding – an essential prerequisite for a condemnation in abstract – since through official letter number ONS 065-2010 DT of November 30, two thousand ten, an official of the Rice Seed Program of the ONS informed – in what is relevant – the plaintiff company that “… in the event that the receipt date of letter GG-SEN-007-08 can be granted as the submission date for an application for protection of the breeder's rights concerning the Palmar 18 variety, which is under legal consultation, we would not have affected the rights of Nombre143465 with the acceptance of the application of (…), since in any case your represented party could collect rights of use of the variety a posteriori. In the event of a resolution granting breeder's rights in favor of Nombre143465, we will be pleased to communicate the quantity of seeds that will be certified to Mr. (…)” (folios 04 and 05 of the administrative file). This is because, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1 and 23 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights, ".. t he breeder's right is not infringed by whomever reserves and sows on their own farm, within reasonable limits and subject to the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of the breeders, the product of the harvest which they have obtained by the cultivation, on their own farm, of a protected variety or of a variety covered by subsection c) of Article 18 of th is Law. The varieties of fruit, ornamental, and forest species are excepted from this provision, when commercial purposes are pursued ..". Consequently, and for all the foregoing, the claim seeking the condemnation in abstract for the payment of damages, filed by the plaintiff party, is declared inadmissible.

VIo.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES. This Court concludes that the company Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. has sufficient active standing to participate in this proceeding according to Article 10 subsection a) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, since it is to whom the challenged formal conduct is directed. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the State and the National Seeds Office, since, as provided by Article 12 subsection 2) of the cited Code, although the National Seeds Office, being the author of the administrative conduct challenged by the plaintiff (see folios 18, 117 vuelto of the judicial file and audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing), constitutes the principal party called to defend and support it when challenged, not only because it is the one who knows its basis or justification, but because the conduct that is the object of the proceeding derives – in part – from the exercise of a competence granted to the Seeds Office, specifically that which finds support in the provisions of Articles 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seeds Office (Law 6289); 5 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Law 8631); 4 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, in terms of it being the competent body to receive, process, and resolve applications for registration in both the Commercial Varieties Registry and the Protected Varieties Registry, and in the latter case, for the protection of the rights of the breeder of new varieties; it is also true that Article 12 subsection 2 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code establishes that one must sue both the body with instrumental legal personality and the State, or the entity to which it is attached, in order to guarantee a better defense of the administrative conduct. On the other hand, the interest remains current, as long as the conduct that is the object of the proceeding continues to have effects on the legal sphere of the plaintiff and requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, this collegiate body finds that the defense of lack of right filed by the representative of the State must be partially upheld, solely – as analyzed in Considerando V of this judgment – regarding that the claim seeking to condemn the defendants in abstract to the payment of damages is inadmissible. Consequently, and in accordance with all of the foregoing set forth in Considerandos III and IV of this judgment, the defense of lack of right is rejected in its other aspects, and consequently, the lawsuit filed by Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. is declared partially with merit.

against the State and the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas), in the following terms, with anything not expressly indicated being deemed denied: i) The absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) is declared of agreement number two, article six, of session number 609 of December 15, 2010, and number two, article six of regular session number 616 of September 28, 2011, adopted by the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the National Seed Office; and Official Letter ONS 332-2010 of December 20, 2010, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, for being substantially contrary to the legal system, specifically to the provisions of articles 7 paragraph 1, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution; 1 subsection 1, 7 and 8 subsection 1 of the TRIPS Agreement (Ley 7475); 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 15 subsections c) and d), 10, 20 subsections a) and b) of the Law of the National Seed Office (Ley 6289); 1 subsections 1 and 3 of the Law on Patents for Invention, Industrial Drawings and Models, and Utility Models (Ley 6867); 77, 78 and 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley 7788); 11, 16 subsection 1), 131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, 221 subsection 1), 287 and 288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration; 5, 7 and 12 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley 8631); 34 subsection a), 60 and 61, 88 of Executive Decree number 12907-A (numerals 60 and 61 before the amendment by article 1 of Executive Decree 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 4, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG and the principles of justice, logic, good faith and legitimate expectations (confianza legítima); ii) In accordance with the provisions of numerals 1, 8 subsections c) and d), 10, 15 subsections c) and d), 20 subsections a) and b) of Ley 6289; 56 to 61 of the Regulation to Ley 6289 (both in its version prior to and after the amendment introduced by Executive Decree number 31736, which entered into force on March 29, 2004); 5 of Ley 8631 and 4 of Executive Decree 35677-MAG; 288 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, March 18, 2008, is maintained as the date of filing before the National Seed Office, of the application submitted by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of the Variety Palmar 18 in the Registry of Protected Varieties (Registro de Variedades Protegidas), just as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official letter number D.E.066-08 of March 21, 2008; iii) Consequently and according to articles 7 and 12 of Ley 8631, 7 to 11 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), and 287 subsection 1) of the General Law of Public Administration, the National Seed Office is ordered to commence processing the application submitted by the plaintiff company on March 18, 2008, in accordance with the procedure established in articles 11 to 24 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), in order to resolve whatever is legally appropriate; iv) The claim seeking an abstract award for the payment of damages (daños y perjuicios), raised by the plaintiff, is declared inadmissible.

**VIIo.- REGARDING COSTS.** In accordance with numeral 193 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed upon the losing party by virtue of being so. The exemption from this award is only viable when the Tribunal considers there is sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is issued based on evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this case, this collegiate body considers there is reason to apply the exception established by the regulation and to break the principle of ordering the losing party to pay, since, insofar as the exception of lack of right (falta de derecho) was partially granted, only in relation to declaring inadmissible the claim related to the abstract award for the payment of damages raised by the plaintiff, this circumstance allows both parties to be classified as good-faith litigants with sufficient reason to litigate.

**THEREFORE (POR TANTO).** The exception of lack of right (falta de derecho) raised by the State is granted, only with respect to the claim seeking an abstract award for the payment of damages. Consequently, the exception of lack of right is rejected on all other grounds, and the lawsuit filed by Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. against the State and the National Seed Office is partially granted, in the following terms, with anything not expressly indicated being deemed denied: 1) The absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) is declared of agreement number two, article six, of session number 609 of December 15, 2010, and number two, article six of regular session number 616 of September 28, 2011, adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Seed Office; and Official Letter ONS 332-2010 of December 20, 2010, issued by the Executive Director of the National Seed Office, for being substantially contrary to the legal system; 2) March 18, 2008, is maintained as the date of filing before the National Seed Office, of the application submitted by the plaintiff company, seeking the registration of the Variety Palmar 18 in the Registry of Protected Varieties, just as the National Seed Office itself had already considered in official letter number D.E.066-08 of March 21, 2008; 3) The National Seed Office is ordered to commence processing the application submitted by the plaintiff company on March 18, 2008, in accordance with the procedure established in articles 11 to 24 of Executive Decree number 35677-MAG, 221 subsection 1), in order to resolve whatever is legally appropriate; 4) This matter is resolved without a special award of costs.

**Marianella Álvarez Molina** **Cynthia Abarca Gómez** **José Martín Conejo Cantillo** **EXPEDIENTE: 11-004342-1027-CA** **PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO** **ACTOR: SEMILLAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO S.A.** **DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO Y LA OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS**

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 ________________________________________________________________________ PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTOR: SEMILLAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO S.A.

DEMANDADO S : EL ESTADO Y LA OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS Nº 180 -2012-VI TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN SEXTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144 . Goicoechea, a las dieciséis horas del siete de setiembre del dos mil doce.- Proceso de conocimiento declarado de puro derecho, interpuesto por Nombre12750 , mayor, casado, abogado, vecino de San José, cédula de identidad número CED16309, en su condición de apoderado especial judicial de la empresa SEMILLAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula jurídica número CED112712, contra el ESTADO, cuya representante es la Procuradora A Licda. LAURA ARAYA ROJAS, mayor, soltera, abogada, vecina de Moravia, cédula de identidad número CED483 y la OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS (ONS), representada por Nombre71391 , mayor, casado, ingeniero agrónomo, vecino de San Francisco de Dos Ríos, cédula de identidad CED112713.

RESULTANDO:

1.- Las pretensiones de la parte actora –que se ajustaron durante la audiencia preliminar que se realizó a las ocho horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintiocho de marzo del dos mil doce-, son para que en sentencia: “... 1) Se declare la nulidad absoluta del acuerdo dos, artículo seis, de la sesión número 609 del quince de diciembre del dos mil diez, de la Junta Directiva de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas; acuerdo dos, artículo seis de la sesión ordinaria número 616 del veintiocho de setiembre del dos mil once de la Junta Directiva de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas; Oficio ONS 332-2010 del veinte de diciembre del dos mil diez, emitido por el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, así como, todos los actos relacionados con los mencionados. 2) Se condene en abstracto a las partes demandadas al pago de los daños y perjuicios que por motivo de inactividad administrativa se le han ocasionado a mi representada, de conformidad con el párrafo segundo, inciso j) del artículo 42 en relación con el inciso m) del numeral 122 del CPCA.” (folios 18 y 117 del expediente judicial, y respaldo digital de la audiencia preliminar). Asimismo, solicitó que se aplicara lo dispuesto en el artículo 69 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

2.- El representante de la OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS, contestó negativamente la demanda. Solicitó que en sentencia se declare sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda planteada y se condene a la actora al pago de ambas costas. Asimismo, indicó que se oponía a la aplicación de lo dispuesto en el artículo 69 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, toda vez que estimaban relevante llamar a confesión al representante de la empresa actora (folios 83 a 89 del expediente judicial).

3.- La representante del ESTADO, contestó negativamente la demanda e interpuso la excepción de falta de derecho. Solicitó que en sentencia se declare sin lugar el proceso y se condene a la actora al pago de ambas costas, así como los intereses sobre éstas desde la firmeza de la sentencia y hasta su efectivo pago. Asimismo, indicó que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 70 inciso 2 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, se prescinda de la audiencia de conciliación. Por último, señaló que no se opone a la solicitud planteada por la actora, a fin de que este asunto se pase a fallo directo (folios 90 a 98 del expediente judicial).

4.- Que por auto de las nueve horas treinta y ocho minutos del diecinueve de enero del dos mil doce (folio 217 del expediente judicial), la Jueza Tramitadora resolvió: a) Tener por contestada en tiempo y en forma la demanda por parte del Estado y de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, y por interpuesta la excepción de falta de derecho; b) Otorgar audiencia de contraprueba a la parte actora por el plazo de tres días; c) Convocar a las partes a audiencia preliminar -dado que la representante del Estado renunció a la conciliación-, diligencia que se señaló para las ocho horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintiocho de marzo del dos mil doce.

5.- Que la audiencia preliminar se celebró a las ocho horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintiocho de marzo del dos mil doce, la cual, fue grabada en el sistema electrónico correspondiente y corre agregada al expediente en un legajo especial. Que durante esta audiencia la Jueza Tramitadora ajustó las pretensiones planteadas por la parte actora, en los términos indicados en el resultado primero de esta sentencia; estableció los hechos controvertidos y no controvertidos, trascendentales para el caso y por ende, objeto de prueba; admitió parcialmente de la prueba documental ofrecida por las partes y rechazó el ofrecimiento de prueba confesional y pericial ofrecida por la Oficina Nacional de Semillas. En consecuencia, como no había prueba testimonial, confesional, ni pericial por evacuar y conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 98.2 del mismo Código, declaró este asunto de puro derecho y las partes rindieron en forma oral sus conclusiones (ver folios 118 y 120 expediente judicial y respaldo digital de la audiencia preliminar).

6.- Que este asunto fue remitido a la Jueza Ponente de la Sección Sexta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, el diecisiete de agosto del dos mil doce (folio 120 vuelto del expediente judicial). En los procedimientos ante este Tribunal no se han observado nulidades que deban ser subsanadas o que generen indefensión y la sentencia se dicta dentro del plazo establecido en los artículos 98 inciso 2) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en relación con el inciso 4) del artículo 82 del Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de esta Jurisdicción.- Redacta la jueza Álvarez Molina, con el voto afirmativo de la jueza Abarca Gómez y del juez Conejo Cantillo; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

Io.- HECHOS PROBADOS: Se tienen como debidamente acreditados los siguientes hechos que resultan relevantes para este proceso: 1) Que el dieciocho de marzo del dos mil ocho, se recibió en la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, la gestión planteada por la empresa actora, según la cual, "...En virtud de que recientemente se aprobó en segundo debate la Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales y en fecha próxima se estará publicando en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, nos permitimos presentarle la solicitud formal para la inscripción de la variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas. Tomando como referencia el documento emitido por la Oficina Nacional de Semillas denominado "Certificado de Registro de Variedades Comerciales" (AR-023-105), se consigna que la variedad Palmar 18 quedó registrada el 4 de junio del 2007. Con lo indicado en el documento se valida que la variedad Palmar 18 tiene menos de un año de estar en el mercado nacional, por lo tanto cumple con el requisito de "novedad" establecido en la Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales. De antemano agradecemos su valiosa colaboración para avalar el trámite de inscripción y le solicitamos nos indique el procedimiento a seguir a efectos de culminar el proceso de registro..." (folio 01 del expediente administrativo); 2) Que la Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales (número 8631), fue publicada en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 56 del diecinueve de marzo del dos mil ocho y entró en vigencia en esa misma fecha (ver archivo digital de la Ley 8631 en la página web: www.pgr.go.cr/scij); 3) Que por oficio número D.E.066-08 del veintiuno de marzo del dos mil ocho, el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, la comunicó al Gerente de la empresa demandante que: "...Acuso recibo de su oficio GG-SEN-007-08, del 11 de marzo del 2008, mediante el cual nos presenta solicitud formal para la inscripción de la variedad de arroz Palmar 18, en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas. Al respecto me permito indicarle que efectivamente la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales fue recientemente aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa el 28 de febrero del presente y publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta Nº 56 el pasado 19 de marzo. En cuanto a su solicitud, debo remitirme al artículo 7 de la Ley en el que se establece que los procedimientos y normas generales para la presentación, trámite, examen técnico y resolución de solicitudes para la concesión del derecho del obtentor, entre otros, se establecerán reglamentariamente. Actualmente estamos dedicados a la redacción de una propuesta de Reglamento a esta Ley para su decreto por el Poder Ejecutivo, que es a quien le compete su aprobación, y esperamos en el corto plazo poder indicarle los procedimientos y requisitos que deben cumplir las solicitudes, tanto en aspectos formales - administrativos como en las condiciones técnicas. De momento, en aras de avanzar en el cumplimiento de requisitos, me permito anexarle el formato utilizado por la UPOV para la descripción de variedades de arroz..." (folio 02 del expediente administrativo); 4) Que el Reglamento a la Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales (Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677), fue publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 6 del once de enero del dos mil diez y entró en vigencia en esa misma fecha (ver archivo digital del Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677 en la página web: www.pgr.go.cr/scij); 5) Que por oficio número ONS 065-2010 DT del 30 de noviembre del dos mil diez, un funcionario del Programa de Semilla del Arroz de la ONC, le comunicó –en lo que interesa- a la empresa accionante que “…en caso de que se pueda otorgar la fecha de recibo de la carta GG-SEN-007-08 como la de presentación de una solicitud de protección de los derechos del obtentor acerca de la variedad Palmar 18, lo cual se encuentra en consulta legal, no habríamos afectado los derechos de Nombre143465 con la aceptación de la solicitud de (…), pues en todo caso su representada podría cobrar derechos de uso de la variedad a posteriori. En caso de una resolución de otorgamiento de derechos de obtentor a favor de Nombre143465, gustosamente le estaremos comunicando la cantidad de semillas que se le certificará al señor (…)” (folios 04 y 05 del expediente administrativo); 6) Que por oficio número SEN-GG-036-10 del treinta de noviembre del dos mil diez, recibido en la Oficina Nacional de Semillas el dos de diciembre del dos mil diez, la empresa accionante solicitó "...ruego se emplace a mi representada para que presente los requisitos que sean necesarios con el fin de poder proseguir con el trámite de inscripción de la variedad de arroz Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas que al efecto lleva la OFINASE..." (folios 06 y 07 del expediente administrativo); 7) Que por oficio número ONS 310-10 D.E. del primero de diciembre del dos mil once, el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, planteó consulta ante la Asesora Legal de ese órgano, en el sentido de que: “…a) ¿Puede reconocerse legalmente la fecha de recibo de la carta GG-SEN-007-08 como fecha de presentación de la solicitud? b) ¿Se puede tomar como referencia para considerar la condición de novedad, la fecha de inscripción de la variedad de Registro Comercial? (…) c) … Se podría reconocer la fecha en que la ONS recibió la carta GG-SEN-007-08 como día de presentación de la solicitud de protección que en los próximos días estaría diligenciando y presentando la empresa interesada, argumentando que una vez que se aprobó la Ley 8631 en segundo debate legislativo, la solicitud tiene respaldo legal y debió ser atendida, a pesar de que la Ley no se había publicado aún (lo que ocurrió hasta el 19 de marzo del 2008) y que desde luego o existía un reglamento a la Ley?...” (folios 08 y 09 del expediente administrativo); 8) Que por escrito fechado 13 de diciembre del dos mil diez, recibido en la ONS el 17 de diciembre del mismo año, la Asesora Legal evacuó la consulta planteada por el Director Ejecutivo de la ONS, en el sentido de que: “…1) No puede reconocerse legalmente como presentación de una solicitud para obtener un título de obtentor vegetal la nota G-SEN-007-08. 2) No puede tenerse como referencia para considerar la novedad la fecha de inscripción de la variedad en el Registro Comercial. 3) Al no aceptarse cómo válidos los supuestos anteriores resulta irrelevante la consideración de retrotraer en el tiempo los hechos para proceder a una inscripción…”. Ello por cuanto, en términos generales consideró: “…A la luz de estas disposiciones, emanadas del mismo acto legislativo, se puede apreciar que la Oficina Nacional de Semillas estaba imposibilitada de otorgar un derecho de obtentor vegetal sin la promulgación específica del reglamento a la ley (…) El Reglamento de la ley se publicó hasta el 11 de enero del año 2010 de manera que hasta esa fecha la Oficina Nacional de Semillas estaba posibilitada de recibir solicitudes en las condiciones y requisitos establecidos por la ley y el mismo reglamento…” (folios 10 a 12 del expediente administrativo); 9) Que por acuerdo 2, artículo 6, adoptado en la sesión 609 celebrada el quince de diciembre del dos mil diez, la Junta Directiva de la ONS dispuso: “…Se acoge el criterio y conclusión de asesoría legal de esta Oficina respecto a la solicitud de la empresa SENUMISA, en el sentido de que: 1) No puede reconocerse legalmente como presentación de una solicitud para obtener un título de obtentor vegetal la nota G-SEN-007-08. 2) No puede tenerse como referencia para considerar la novedad la echa de inscripción de la variedad en el Registro Comercial. 3) Al no aceptarse cómo válidos los supuestos anteriores resulta irrelevante la consideración de retrotraer en el tiempo los hechos para proceder a una inscripción. Se instruye a la Administración comunicar a la empresa Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. la resolución…” (folio 15 del expediente administrativo); 10) Que por oficio número ONS-332-2010 del veinte de diciembre del dos mil diez, el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, comunicó a la empresa demandante que “…Me permito dar respuesta a su oficio SEN-GG 036-10, respecto a la solicitud de protección de la variedad Palmar 18 a favor de su representada (…) Lamentamos que, en este caso particular y dadas las circunstancias en las que se presentó, no sea factible dar trámite a lo solicitado por su representada (…) Cabe anotar que el reglamento a la Ley se publicó en el Diario Oficial hasta el 11 de enero del 2010. De modo que es hasta esa fecha que la Oficina estaba posibilitada de recibir solicitudes en las condiciones y requisitos establecidos por la Ley y el Reglamento. Si bien en la nota de respuesta inicial se refleja la buena disposición de atender su solicitud, en el momento en que se plantea no podíamos proceder en el trámite, puesto que no contábamos con todos los instrumentos normativos requeridos para formalizar la solicitud. Finalmente, debo indicarle que, dada la relevancia del caso, este asunto ha sido atendido en el seno de nuestra Junta Directiva, la cual acordó acoger el criterio y conclusión de nuestra asesoría legal…” (folios 13 y 14 del expediente administrativo); 11) Que por acuerdo 2, artículo 6, adoptado en la sesión 616 celebrada el veintiocho de setiembre del dos mil once, la Junta Directiva de la ONS dispuso: “…ACLARAR EL ACUERDO DOS, ARTÍCULO SEIS, ACTA DE LA SESIÓN NÚMERO SEISCIENTOS NUEVE DE LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA DEL MIÉRCOLES QU I NCE DE DICIEMBRE DEL DOS MIL DIEZ, teniéndose por sustentado dicho acuerdo en los argumentos jurídicos que constan en el dictamen de la Asesoría Legal que fueron acogidos en esa acta…”. Ello por cuanto, se estimó -en términos generales- que: “…el dictamen de la asesora legal en el punto referido a que no puede reconocerse legalmente como presentación de una solicitud para obtener un título obtentor, la nota que inicialmente presentó Nombre143465, representa el fundamento legal y el motivo para esta posición. Es decir, responde a la imposibilidad legal y material de la administración de actuar en ese momento por falta de ley, puesto que ésta no estaba vigente a la hora de presentar la nota bajo consecutivo GG-SEN-007-08, así como a la falta de sustento normativo reglamentario que nos permitiera actuar dentro de los cauces de legalidad derivados de los artículos 11 de la Constitución Política y 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública…” (folios 67 a 74 del expediente judicial); 12) Que por certificación extendida el veintisiete de marzo del dos mil doce, el Jefe del Departamento Técnico de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, certificó que “…según los expedientes y registros que lleva esta oficina, el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, fue implementado a partir de la promulgación de la Ley 8631 PROTECCIÓN DE LAS OBTENCIONES VEG E TALES publicada en la Gaceta 56 el día 19 de marzo del 2008 y su Reglamento Decreto Nº 35677-MAG publicado en la Gaceta Nº6 del 11 de enero del año 2010. En consecuencia, anterior a dichas fechas no se había establecido el Sistema para el Registro de Variedades Protegidas…” (folio 115 del expediente judicial).

IIo.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO. La parte actora estima que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 8, 10, 15 incisos c) y d) y 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley número 6289 del 4 de diciembre de 1978); 9, 34 inciso a), 60 y 61 del Reglamento a esa Ley , la Oficina Nacional de Semillas tenía claramente delimitados los alcances y potestades para hacer efectiva la Protección Varietal y Derechos d e Obtentor de Nuevas Variedades Vegetales; por lo que, a su juicio, le correspondía desde 1978, no sólo abrir un Registro de Variedades Protegidas, a fin de proteger los derechos de quienes inscriban las variedades nuevas, creadas o descubiertas, sino también, establecer los requisitos y el procedimiento necesarios para tal efecto. En razón de lo anterior, considera que desde 1978 le asiste un derecho a proteger la propiedad intelectual en material de obtenciones vegetales, el cual fue reforzado a partir del 19 de marzo del dos mil ocho, fecha de entrada en vigencia de la Ley para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley número 8631). Que ese derecho también encuentra sustento, en lo dispuesto por los artículos 47 de la Constitución Política, 1 del Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual Relacionados con el Comercio (Anexo 1 C Convenio de la OMC, aprobado por Costa Rica mediante Ley 7475, que entró en vigencia el 26 de diciembre de 1994); 77, 78 y 88 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; y el Convenio para la Protección de Variedades Vegetales, publicado en La Gaceta número 83 del 30 de abril del dos mil ocho. En razón de lo anterior, considera que los actos impugnados resultan contrarios a lo dispuesto en los artículos 131, 132 y 133 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, pues a su juicio, resulta sustancialmente contrario al ordenamiento jurídico, rechazar la solicitud planteada desde el 18 de marzo del dos mil ocho, a fin de que se inscribiera en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, la Variedad Palmar 18, bajo el argumento de que al momento de su presentación ante la ONS, no sólo no había entrado en vigencia la Ley para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley número 8631), sino que además, tampoco se había dictado el reglamento ejecutivo a esa ley, en el que debían establecerse no sólo los requisitos, sino además el procedimiento a aplicar, a efecto de determinar la procedencia o no de las solicitudes planteadas para la protección de las obtenciones vegetales. En ese sentido, sostiene que la ONS debió tomar en cuenta que la normativa administrativa debe interpretarse en la forma que mejor garantice la realización del fin público a que se dirige, de manera que si un día después de que su representada presentó su solicitud de inscripción de la Variedad Palmar 18, ya existía una norma que declaraba de interés nacional la actividad de generación de variedades y otra norma que establecía su competencia para recibir, tramitar y resolver las solicitudes, entonces, debió considerar que esperar a que existiera un reglamento para determinar si procedía o no el otorgamiento de un registro de esta clase, en nada satisfacía el fin público de beneficiar el desarrollo y la competitividad agropecuaria, por lo que, estima que en ausencia de dicho reglamento debió integrar las normas existentes en el momento de presentación de la solicitud, o bien, enderezar los procedimientos con el reglamento que ya se había emitido. En razón de lo anterior, considera improcedente que tres años después de presentada la solicitud presentada a fin de que se inscribiera la variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, la ONS haya decidido rechazarla bajo el argumento de que al momento de su presentación no contaba con las herramientas reglamentarias para tramitarla, a pesar de que a su juicio, el derecho a obtener protección al obtentor de una variedad vegetal, previsto en la Constitución Política, el Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual Relacionados con el Comercio; la Ley de Biodiversidad y el Convenio para la Protección de Variedades Vegetales, es de aplicación inmediata y no requiere de una ley para que produzca sus efectos. Aunado a lo anterior, estima improcedente que se rechace su solicitud bajo el argumento de que al momento de su interposición aún no se había dictado el reglamento que de conformidad con el artículo 7 de la Ley 8631 debía dictarse para regular los procedimientos y normas generales para la presentación, trámite y resolución de las solicitudes para la concesión de derechos de obtentor, cuando el Poder Ejecutivo demoró casi dos años en emitir el reglamento ejecutivo a la Ley 8631, por lo que, alega improcedente que se le achaquen las consecuencias negativas de esa dilación su representada, tal y como lo ha sostenido en casos similares la jurisprudencia constitucional (sentencia 1900-1463 de las catorce horas treinta minutos del treinta de octubre de mil novecientos noventa). En consecuencia, considera que los incumplimientos en que incurrió la ONS, produjeron una lesión antijurídica tanto a la empresa demandante como al interés público. Por su parte, los representantes del Estado y de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas sostienen que: a) El motivo del acto se conforma plenamente, ya que, el antecedente fáctico lo constituye la presentación prematura de la solicitud, cuyo reconocimiento se pretende en este asunto. Resaltan que el accionante formuló su gestión de previo a la publicación en La Gaceta de la Ley, situación que a su juicio, evidencia que aún el cuerpo normativo en que el actor pretende descansar su derecho, no surtía efectos. En razón de lo anterior, consideran que acceder a lo peticionado por el accionante sería contrario a lo dispuesto en los artículos 11 y 129 de la Constitución Política, 7 del Código Civil, toda vez que al momento de plantear la gestión, la norma en que la fundamenta aun no había nacido a la vida jurídica; b) Alegan que la propia Ley 8631 imponía una limitante adicional, toda vez que el numeral 7 somete todos los procedimientos, trámites, exámenes y resoluciones en la materia de concesión de derechos del obtentor, a la norma reglamentaria, misma que no existía al momento de la presentación de la solicitud. Estiman que dicha circunstancia, niega cualquier posibilidad para que por vía interpretativa o integradora, ninguna dependencia o instancia de la ONS, se atribuya potestades para fijar los parámetros tendentes a obtener una protección en la materia, pues existe una clara reserva reglamentaria dada por la ley. Asimismo, alegan que la vigencia de una ley comienza con la publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, por lo que, su aplicación e interpretación puede darse con posterioridad a ese momento y no de previo, como mal lo pretende el accionante; c) Indican que ninguna afectación puede derivarse para la empresa actora, por el tiempo transcurrido para dictar el Reglamento a la Ley 8631, toda vez que ésta formuló su gestión de manera prematura y por tal razón fue rechazada. Es decir, sostienen que independientemente del momento en que se emitiera el cuerpo normativo en análisis, la gestión objeto de litigio iba a ser denegada, por lo que, la razonabilidad y proporcionalidad del plazo para el dictado del Reglamento a la Ley 8631 no puede constituir un motivo de nulidad de los actos impugnados, no sólo porque dicho aspecto no se discute ni debe discutirse en este proceso, sino porque también, porque los aspectos a regular requerían de un profundo análisis y por ende, el tiempo transcurrido para la emisión del Reglamento, responde a lo técnico de la materia y a la protección efectiva que debe brindársele a cada persona física o jurídica que pretenda la concesión de un derecho de obtentor; d) Por último, la representante del Estado alega que el accionante omitió indicar en qué consisten las lesiones que reclama y la cuantificación de éstas. En razón de lo anterior, estima que se encuentra en total estado de indefensión, al desconocer el tipo de lesión, en qué consiste y su cuantificación, circunstancia que conlleva la imposibilidad material de defensa. No obstante, indica que de considerar que existe alguna lesión que deba indemnizarse, la ONS cuenta con presupuesto propio y por ende, deberá recaer sobre ésta la imposición de los rubros a cancelar, conforme a lo resuelto por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en sentencia número 1360-F-S1-2010 de las diez horas veinticinco minutos del once de noviembre del dos mil diez.

I II o.- SOBRE EL RECONOCIMIENTO DEL DERECHO A LA PROTECCIÓN DE LAS OBTENCIONES VEGETALES, CON ANTERIORIDAD A LA LEY # 8631 Y LOS MECANISMOS DE TUTELA DEL MISMO PREVISTOS EN LA LEY # 6289. Si bien es cierto, de conformidad con el párrafo 1º del artículo 129 de la Constitución Política, las leyes son obligatorias y surten efectos desde el día que ellas designen y a falta de ese requisito, diez días después de su publicación en el Diario Oficial; también lo es, que el párrafo 2º de ese mismo numeral, establece que nadie puede alegar ignorancia de la ley. En ese sentido y contrario a lo que sostienen los representantes del Estado y de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, el reconocimiento del derecho a la protección de las obtenciones vegetales, no se origina con la entrada en vigencia el 19 de marzo del dos mil ocho, de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (número 8631), sino que tiene su génesis en el propio artículo 47 de la Constitución Política, que establece “…Todo autor, inventor, productor o comerciante gozará temporalmente de la propiedad exclusiva de su obra, invención, marca o nombre comercial, con arreglo a la ley…”. Ahora bien, dado que el constituyente delega en el legislador la regulación de ese derecho, mediante la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289), que entró en vigencia el cuatro de diciembre de mil novecientos setenta y ocho, creó la ONS como un órgano del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería con independencia en su funcionamiento operativo y con personería jurídica propia en su administración, que tendrá a su cargo la promoción y protección, el mejoramiento, control, y el uso de semillas de calidad superior (artículo 1). Para tal efecto, la ONS debe llevar –entre otros aspectos- un registro de variedades comerciales, con recomendaciones o restricciones en su uso, así como un registro de variedades protegidas; así como también, establecer las normas y controles para la producción de los derechos del obtentor de nuevas variedades -artículos 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d)-. Para cumplir este último aspecto, la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, a través del reglamento de la Ley 6289, fijará las condiciones que deberán cumplirse para obtener los títulos de productor de semillas, así como sus diferentes categorías, derechos y obligaciones. Igualmente, regulará el comercio entre productores, procesadores y comerciantes en general, para garantizar la calidad de las semillas, para lo cual, se establecerá un registro que autorizará a quien se inscriba para comerciar con semillas –artículos 10, 20 incisos a) y b)-. En ese sentido, el Reglamento a la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Decreto Ejecutivo número 12907-A, que entró en vigencia el 21 de setiembre de 1981), establecía en los artículos 60 y 61 –respectivamente- que la ONS abrirá un Registro de Variedades Protegidas en donde se inscribirán las variedades nuevas, creadas o descubiertas; y que la inscripción en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, se hará de acuerdo a los requisitos que para el efecto se establezcan por la Oficina Nacional de Semillas en su oportunidad. Ello por cuanto, la ONS tiene la potestad de proponer al Poder Ejecutivo, la modificación de ese Decreto Ejecutivo y la emisión de los decretos necesarios para la realización de las funciones que le impone la Ley y el propio Reglamento (artículo 34 inciso 1). Por último, el numeral 88 de ese mismo Reglamento define las variedades protegidas, como aquellas variedades vegetales nuevas creadas o descubiertas debidamente inscritas en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, establecidas para tal efecto. Cabe resaltar que mediante el artículo 1 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004, se modificaron –entre otros- los artículos 60 y 61 del Reglamento a la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, eliminándose con ello, las normas referidas a la obligación de regular todo lo concerniente al Registro de Variedades Protegidas (que fue creado desde 1978 por la Ley 8269) y por ende, a la tutela efectiva de los derechos de obtentor de variedades protegidas, que la Ley 6289 le impone a la ONS como una de sus funciones principales, centrándose únicamente en regular el Registro de Variedades Comerciales (ver considerandos 3 a 6 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 31736, en la versión digital de esa normativa, en la página web: www.pgr.go.cr/scij). En este punto cabe resaltar, que no sólo la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289), impone al Estado en general y a la ONS en lo particular, la regulación efectiva de los derechos de protección de las obtenciones vegetales, sino también, las siguientes normas: i) La Ley de Patentes de Invención, Dibujos y Modelos Industriales y Modelos de Utilidad (Ley número 6867, que entró en vigencia el 25 de abril de 1983), establece en el artículo 1 incisos 1 y 3, respectivamente, que “…1.- Invención es toda creación del intelecto humano, capaz de ser aplicada en la industria, que cumpla las condiciones de patentabilidad previstas en esta ley. Podrá ser un producto, una máquina, una herramienta o un procedimiento de fabricación y estará protegida por la patente de invención (…) 3.- Las obtenciones vegetales tendrán protección mediante una ley especial…”; ii) El Acuerdo por el que se establece la Organización Mundial del Comercio, específicamente el Anexo 1 C, denominado Acuerdo Sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC), que fue aprobado por la Asamblea Legislativa mediante Ley número 7475, que entró en vigencia el 26 de diciembre de 1994, en cuyo artículo 1. 1 que “Los Miembros podrán prever en su legislación, aunque no estarán obligados a ello, una protección más amplia que la exigida por el presente Acuerdo, a condición de que tal protección no infrinja las disposiciones del mismo. Los Miembros podrán establecer libremente el método adecuado para aplicar las disposiciones del presente Acuerdo en el marco de su propio sistema y práctica jurídicos”. Asimismo, se indica que la protección y la observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual deberán contribuir a la promoción de la innovación tecnológica y a la transferencia y difusión de la tecnología, en beneficio recíproco de los productores y de los usuarios de conocimientos tecnológicos y de modo que favorezcan el bienestar social y económico y el equilibrio de derechos y obligaciones (artículo 7). Por último y en lo que interesa para el caso concreto, el numeral 8 establece los principios que deben regir las legislaciones internas tendentes a la protección de la propiedad intelectual, en el sentido de que “…Los Miembros, al formular o modificar sus leyes y reglamentos, podrán adoptar las medidas necesarias para proteger la salud pública y la nutrición de la población, o para promover el interés público en sectores de importancia vital para su desarrollo socioeconómico y tecnológico, siempre que esas medidas sean compatibles con lo dispuesto en el presente Acuerdo.” iii) La Ley de Biodiversidad (Ley número 7788, que entró en vigencia el 27 de mayo de 1998), la cual, establece que el Estado reconoce la existencia y validez de las formas de conocimiento e innovación y la necesidad de protegerlas, mediante el uso de los mecanismos legales apropiados para cada caso específico (artículo 77), que se traducen –entre otras formas y con las excepciones allí contempladas- en patentes, secretos comerciales, derechos del fitomejorador, derechos intelectuales comunitarios sui géneris, derechos de autor, derechos de los agricultores (artículo 78). Ello por cuanto, existe un interés público en garantizar al país y sus habitantes, ser destinatarios de información y cooperación científico-técnica en materia de biodiversidad, así como tener acceso a la tecnología mediante políticas adecuadas de transferencia, incluida la biotecnología y el conocimiento asociado; razón por la cual, el Estado deberá facilitar el acceso a las tecnologías pertinentes para la conservación y el uso sostenible de la biodiversidad, sin perjuicio de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, industrial o de los derechos colectivos intelectuales sui géneris (artículo 88). No obstante lo anterior, el Estado y la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, incumplieron el deber impuesto por la Constitución Política; el ADPIC (aprobado por Ley 7475); las Leyes 6289, 6867 y 7788; el Decreto Ejecutivo número 12907-A, relativo a regular todo lo concerniente al Registro de Variedades Protegidas, fue que creado desde 1978 por la Ley 6289 y por ende, a la tutela efectiva de los derechos de obtentor de variedades protegidas, que esa Ley le impone a la ONS como una de sus funciones principales. Tan es así, que por certificación extendida el veintisiete de marzo del dos mil doce, el Jefe del Departamento Técnico de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, consignó que “…según los expedientes y registros que lleva esta oficina, el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, fue implementado a partir de la promulgación de la Ley 8631 PROTECCIÓN DE LAS OBTENCIONES VEG E TALES publicada en la Gaceta 56 el día 19 de marzo del 2008 y su Reglamento Decreto Nº 35677-MAG publicado en la Gaceta Nº6 del 11 de enero del año 2010. En consecuencia, anterior a dichas fechas no se había establecido el Sistema para el Registro de Variedades Protegidas…” (folio 115 del expediente judicial). En consecuencia, el derecho a la protección de las obtenciones vegetales, no sólo estaba reconocido de manera general desde la promulgación de la Constitución de 1949 (artículo 47), y en especial desde 1978 con la entrada en vigencia de la Ley número 6289 -artículos 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d), 10, 20 incisos a) y b)-, sino que además, en dicha Ley se establecieron de manera general los mecanismos de tutela del mismo, mediante la creación del Registro de Variedades Protegidas, cuya implementación estaba supeditada a que por vía reglamentaria y a instancia de la ONS, el Poder Ejecutivo estableciera los requisitos y el procedimiento a seguir para tal efecto, lo cual, nunca se hizo durante el período comprendido entre el cuatro de diciembre de 1978 (fecha de entrada en vigencia de la Ley 6289) al once de enero del 2010 (fecha de entrada en vigencia del Reglamento a la Ley para la Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales, Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677). Más bien todo lo contrario, ya que mediante el artículo 1 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004, se modificaron –entre otros- los artículos 60 y 61 del Reglamento a la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, eliminándose con ello, las normas referidas a la obligación de regular vía reglamentaria, todo lo concerniente al Registro de Variedades Protegidas (que fue creado desde 1978 por la Ley 6 2 8 9) centrándose únicamente en regular el Registro de Variedades Comerciales (ver considerandos 3 a 6 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 31736, en la versión digital de esa normativa, en la página web: www.pgr.go.cr/scij), lo cual, resulta contrario a lo dispuesto por la propia ley que reglamenta, de manera manifiesta y evidente. Lo anterior, a pesar de que incluso, desde el veintiséis de diciembre de 1994, el Estado costarricense había aprobado mediante Ley 7475, el Acuerdo por el que se establece la Organización Mundial del Comercio, específicamente el Anexo 1 C, denominado Acuerdo Sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC), y por ende, se había comprometido a nivel internacional, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1 inciso 1, 7 y 8 inciso 1 del ADPIC, a formular y/o modificar sus leyes y reglamentos, a fin de proteger y observar de manera efectiva los derechos de propiedad intelectual, conforme a las disposiciones de dicho Acuerdo (artículo 7 párrafo 1º y 48 de la Constitución Política). Por último, es menester destacar que la Ley para la Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales, no derogó las disposiciones contenidas en los artículos 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d), 10, 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, relacionadas con la creación y regulación del Registro de Variedades Protegidas y por ende, para la protección de los derechos del obtentor de nuevas variedades. Por todo lo expuesto, considera este Tribunal que no sólo resulta sustancialmente contrario a lo dispuesto en los artículos 7 párrafo 1º, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 párrafo 2º de la Constitución Política; 1 inciso 1, 7 y 8 inciso 1 del ADPIC (Ley 7475); 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d), 10, 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289); 1 incisos 1 y 3 de la Ley de Patentes de Invención, Dibujos y Modelos Industriales y Modelos de Utilidad (Ley 6867); 77, 78 y 88 de la Ley de Biodiversidad (Ley 7788); 34 inciso a), 60 y 61, 88 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 12907-A (los numerales 60 y 61 antes de la reforma por el artículo 1 del Decreto Ejecutivo 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004); sino también, a los principios de lógica y justicia (artículo 16 inciso 1 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), que los demandados aleguen que con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia tanto de la Ley para la Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley número 8631 del 19 de marzo del 2008) y del Reglamento a esa Ley (Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG del 11 de enero del 2010), no era posible recibir solicitudes tendentes al reconocimiento de derechos de protección de las obtenciones vegetales, porque no existía norma que los amparara, como tampoco disposiciones que regularan los requisitos y el procedimiento a seguir para su posible inscripción en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, no sólo porque el derecho a la protección de las obtenciones vegetales, estaba reconocido de manera general desde la promulgación de la Constitución Política de 1949 (artículo 47), y en especial desde 1978 con la entrada en vigencia de la Ley número 6289 -artículos 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d), 10, 20 incisos a) y b)-, reafirmándose tanto en el año 1983 con lo dispuesto en el artículo 1 incisos 1 y 3 de la Ley 6867, como en el año 1998 con los numerales 77, 78 y 88 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; sino porque además, en la propia Ley 6289 se establecieron de manera general los mecanismos de tutela del mismo, mediante la creación del Registro de Variedades Protegidas, cuya implementación estaba supeditada a que por vía reglamentaria y a instancia de la ONS, el Poder Ejecutivo estableciera los requisitos y el procedimiento a seguir para tal efecto, lo cual, no se hizo sino hasta el once de enero del 2010, con la entrada en vigencia del Reglamento a la Ley para la Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales, Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677. En consecuencia, los demandados no pueden válidamente traspasar a quien solicita le sea declarado el derecho de obtentor, sobre una variedad de semillas que pretende le sea protegida e inscrita en el registro respectivo-, los efectos negativos derivados de la inactividad administrativa en que incurrieron desde el cuatro de diciembre de 1978 (fecha de entrada en vigencia de la Ley 6289) hasta el once de enero del 2010 (fecha de entrada en vigencia del Reglamento a la Ley para la Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales, Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677), al no regular de manera pronta, cumplida y conforme a derecho, los mecanismos de tutela del derecho a la protección de las obtenciones vegetales previstos desde 1978 por la Ley 6289 y el Reglamento a esa Ley, bajo el argumento de que al momento de que planteó su gestión, no estaba vigente ninguna ley o reglamento que amparara el derecho que alega tener, tal y como se analizará de seguido en considerando siguiente.

I Vo.- EN CUANTO A LOS VICIOS DE NULIDAD ABSOLUTA DE LAS CONDUCTAS FORMALES IMPUGNADAS. Este Tribunal considera que los acuerdos número dos, artículo seis, de la sesión número 609 del quince de diciembre del dos mil diez, y número dos, artículo seis de la sesión ordinaria número 616 del veintiocho de setiembre del dos mil once, adoptados por la Junta Directiva de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas; el Oficio ONS 332-2010 del veinte de diciembre del dos mil diez, emitido por el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, adolecen de vicios de nulidad absoluta, por ser sustancialmente contrarios al ordenamiento jurídico, por las razones que de seguido se exponen: 1) Respecto al motivo. Este Tribunal considera que el motivo que sustenta los actos impugnados es ilegítimo, puesto que se basa en “…la imposibilidad legal y material de la administración de actuar en ese momento por falta de ley, puesto que ésta no estaba vigente a la hora de presentar la nota bajo consecutivo GG-SEN-007-08, así como a la falta de sustento normativo reglamentario que nos permitiera actuar dentro de los cauces de legalidad derivados de los artículos 11 de la Constitución Política y 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública…” (folios 67 a 74 del expediente judicial; 13, 14 y 15 del expediente administrativo). En ese sentido, tal y como se analizó en el considerando I II de esta sentencia, resulta sustancialmente contrario a l ordenamiento jurídico , que los demandados aleguen que con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia tanto de la Ley para la Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley número 8631 del 19 de marzo del 2008) y del Reglamento a esa Ley (Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG del 11 de enero del 2010), no era posible recibir solicitudes tendentes al reconocimiento de derechos de protección de las obtenciones vegetales, porque no existía norma que los amparara, como tampoco disposiciones que regularan los requisitos y el procedimiento a seguir para sus posible inscripción en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, cuando, tal y como se explicó supra, si existía dicha normativa . 2) Con relación al contenido. Este Tribunal considera que el contenido que sustenta los actos impugnados no es lícito, puesto que se basa en “…A la luz de estas disposiciones, emanadas del mismo acto legislativo, se puede apreciar que la Oficina Nacional de Semillas estaba imposibilitada de otorgar un derecho de obtentor vegetal sin la promulgación específica del reglamento a la ley (…) El Reglamento de la ley se publicó hasta el 11 de enero del año 2010 de manera que hasta esa fecha la Oficina Nacional de Semillas estaba posibilitada de recibir solicitudes en las condiciones y requisitos establecidos por la ley y el mismo reglamento…” (folios 10 a 14 del expediente administrativo). En primera instancia, si bien es cierto, el artículo 7 de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley 8631), establece que “…Los procedimientos y las normas generales para la presentación, publicación de información sobre solicitudes, concesiones de derechos de obtentor y las denominaciones propuestas y aprobadas, el trámite, el examen técnico y la resolución de las solicitudes para la concesión del derecho de obtentor, se establecerán reglamentariamente. // Los procedimientos y las normas que se desarrollen reglamentariamente deberán incluir, como mínimo, los requisitos que deben cumplir las solicitudes para la obtención del título de obtención vegetal, la obligación de publicar un aviso de las solicitudes presentadas, la oportunidad de terceros de presentar oposiciones a las solicitudes presentadas, previo a su otorgamiento, y el órgano competente para la resolución del procedimiento. También se publicará la información sobre los derechos de obtentor concedidos y de las denominaciones propuestas y aprobadas.”; dicha circunstancia no implica que los interesados en que se les declar e el derecho de obtentor, sobre una variedad de semillas que pretende n le s sea protegida e inscrita en el registro respectivo, no pudieran presentar la solicitud correspondiente, antes de la promulgación de la Ley 8631, por las razones ya indicadas en el apartado precedente; o bien, en el período comprendido entre la fecha de entrada en vigencia de la Ley 8631 (19 de marzo de 2008) y la fecha en que se publicó y entró en vigencia el Reglamento a la Ley 8631 (11 de enero del 2010). Ello por cuanto, desde el 04 de diciembre de 1978 de La Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ofinase) es el órgano competente para recibir, tramitar y resolver las solicitudes para la inscripción tanto en el Registro de Variedades Comerciales, como en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas y en este último caso, para la protección de los derechos del obtentor de nuevas variedades, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 10, 15 incisos c) y d), 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley 6289; 56 a 61 del Reglamento a la Ley 6289 (tanto en su versión anterior y posterior a la reforma introducida por Decreto Ejecutivo número 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004); lo cual se reafirma, en el artículo 5 de la Ley 8631 y 4 del Decreto Ejecutivo 35677. En consecuencia, el hecho de que antes de la promulgación de la Ley 8631 o durante el período comprendido entre la fecha de entrada en vigencia de la Ley 8631 (19 de marzo de 2008) y la fecha en que se publicó y entró en vigencia el Reglamento a la Ley 8631 (11 de enero del 2010), no se hubiera dictado el reglamento que definiría los procedimientos y las normas generales para la presentación, publicación de información sobre solicitudes, concesiones de derechos de obtentor y las denominaciones propuestas y aprobadas, el trámite, el examen técnico y la resolución de las solicitudes para la concesión del derecho de obtentor, no impedía la presentación de las solicitudes tendentes a la protección de una variedad vegetal mediante su inscripción en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, cuya tramitación efectiva quedaría a la espera de que dictara la normativa reglamentaria respectiva. Sostener lo contrario, resulta contrario a los principios de lógica y justicia y a lo dispuesto en los artículos 7 párrafo 1º, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 párrafo 2º de la Constitución Política; 1 inciso 1, 7 y 8 inciso 1 del ADPIC (Ley 7475); 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d), 10, 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289); 1 incisos 1 y 3 de la Ley de Patentes de Invención, Dibujos y Modelos Industriales y Modelos de Utilidad (Ley 6867); 77, 78 y 88 de la Ley de Biodiversidad (Ley 7788), no sólo porque implica traspasar , como ya se dijo, a quien solicita le sea declarado el derecho de obtentor, sobre una variedad de semillas que pretende le sea protegida e inscrita en el registro respectivo-, los efectos negativos derivados de la inactividad administrativa en que incurrieron desde el cuatro de diciembre de 1978 (fecha de entrada en vigencia de la Ley 6289) hasta el once de enero del 2010 (fecha de entrada en vigencia del Reglamento a la Ley para la Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales, Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677), al no regular de manera pronta, cumplida y conforme a derecho, los mecanismos de tutela del derecho a la protección de las obtenciones vegetales previstos desde 1978 por la Ley 6289 y el Reglamento a esa Ley, reafirmado por la Ley 8631 y el Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677, bajo el argumento de que al momento de que planteó su gestión, no estaba vigente ninguna ley o reglamento que amparara el derecho que alega tener (folio 1 del expediente administrativo); sino también, porque legalmente es su obligación recibirlas para darles el trámite respectivo, aún y cuando éste estuviera supeditado a la emisión del reglamento ejecutivo, toda vez que la ONS es el órgano competente para recibirlas, tramitarlas y resolverlas, conforme a lo dispuesto en los numerales 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 10, 15 incisos c) y d), 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley 6289; 56 a 61 del Reglamento a la Ley 6289 (tanto en su versión anterior y posterior a la reforma introducida por Decreto Ejecutivo número 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004); 5 de la Ley 8631 y 4 del Decreto Ejecutivo 35677. En consecuencia y de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 288 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se mantiene el 18 de marzo del dos mil ocho, como fecha de presentación ante la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, de la solicitud planteada por la empresa demandante, tendente a la inscripción de la Variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, tal y como la propia Oficina Nacional de Semillas, ya había considerado en oficio número D.E.066-08 del veintiuno de marzo del dos mil ocho, al comunicar al representante de la empresa actora que "...Acuso recibo de su oficio GG-SEN-007-08, del 11 de marzo del 2008, mediante el cual nos presenta solicitud formal para la inscripción de la variedad de arroz Palmar 18, en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas…” (folio 02 del expediente administrativo). En ese sentido y como segundo aspecto a analizar, si bien es cierto, no era posible aplicar en el caso de las obtenciones de variedades vegetales, las normas procesales contenidas en los artículos 6 al 15 de la Ley de Patentes de Invención, Dibujos y Modelos Industriales y Modelos de Utilidad (Ley 6867), que regulan el procedimiento a seguir cuando se solicita patentar una invención, toda vez que la naturaleza de los requisitos para el otorgamiento de una patente de invención y su posterior inscripción en el registro (artículo 6 de la Ley 6867), son diferentes a los requeridos para obtener la protección de una variedad vegetal (artículo 7 del Decreto Ejecutivo 35677), tan es así, que el propio inciso 3 del artículo 1 de la Ley de Patentes de Invención, Dibujos y Modelos Industriales y Modelos de Utilidad, establece que “…Las obtenciones vegetales tendrán protección mediante una ley especial…”; también lo es, que la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, en aplicación de lo dispuesto en los artículos 39, 41 y 47 de la Constitución Política; 221 inciso 1) y 287 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, debió prevenir a la empresa accionante, una vez que entrara en vigencia el Reglamento a la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Decreto Ejecutivo 35677), que la completara o corrigiera en el plazo de treinta días hábiles, conforme a los requerimientos previstos en los numerales 7 a 11 del Decreto Ejecutivo 35677, a fin de establecer –en primera instancia- el examen de forma de la gestión planteada. Ello por cuanto, el procedimiento tendente a tramitar y resolver la solicitud planteada por la empresa demandante el dieciocho de marzo del dos mil ocho, a fin de inscribir la Variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, estaba paralizado por causas imputables a los demandados, que demoraron desde el cuatro de diciembre de 1978 (fecha de entrada en vigencia de la Ley 6289) hasta el once de enero del 2010 (fecha de entrada en vigencia del Reglamento a la Ley para la Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales, Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677), para reglamentar los mecanismos de tutela del derecho a la protección de las obtenciones vegetales previstos desde 1978 por la Ley 6289 y el Reglamento a esa Ley. Tan es así, que la propia empresa actora en la solicitud planteada el 18 de marzo del dos mil ocho, consciente de que su solicitud estaba supeditada a la reglamentación del procedimiento y al establecimiento de los requisitos por esa vía, indicó “… De antemano agradecemos su valiosa colaboración para avalar el trámite de inscripción y le solicitamos nos indique el procedimiento a seguir a efectos de culminar el proceso de registro..." (folio 01 del expediente administrativo). Cabe destacar en este punto, que por oficio número D.E.066-08 del veintiuno de marzo del dos mil ocho, el propio Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, la comunicó al Gerente de la empresa demandante que: "... esperamos en el corto plazo poder indicarle los procedimientos y requisitos que deben cumplir las solicitudes, tanto en aspectos formales - administrativos como en las condiciones técnicas. De momento, en aras de avanzar en el cumplimiento de requisitos, me permito anexarle el formato utilizado por la UPOV para la descripción de variedades de arroz..." (folio 02 del expediente administrativo). Considera este Tribunal que en razón de lo expuesto, resulta contrario a los principios de buena fe y de confianza legítima, que dos años y casi nueve meses después de que el Director Ejecutivo de la ONS emitiera dicho oficio, la Junta Directiva de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, denegara a la empresa actora la solicitud de inscripción de la Variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, bajo el argumento de que “…No puede reconocerse legalmente como presentación de una solicitud para obtener un título de obtentor vegetal la nota G-SEN-007-083) (…) Al no aceptarse cómo válidos los supuestos anteriores resulta irrelevante la consideración de retrotraer en el tiempo los hechos para proceder a una inscripción…”, toda vez que –se insiste- en aplicación de lo dispuesto en los artículos 39, 41 y 47 de la Constitución Política; 221 inciso 1) y 287 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, debió prevenir a la empresa accionante, una vez que entrara en vigencia el Reglamento a la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Decreto Ejecutivo 35677), que completara o corrigiera la solicitud planteada, en el plazo de treinta días hábiles, conforme a los requerimientos previstos en los numerales 7 a 11 del Decreto Ejecutivo 35677, a fin de establecer –en primera instancia- el examen de forma de la gestión planteada. 3) En cuanto al fin. Cabe recordar que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 2, 8 incisos c) y d), 10, 15 incisos c) y d) de la Ley de Creación de la Oficina de Semillas; 7 del Acuerdo Sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio (ADPIC); 88 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y 3 de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales, existe un interés público en garantizar al país y sus habitantes, ser destinatarios de información y cooperación científico-técnica en materia de biodiversidad, así como tener acceso a la tecnología mediante políticas adecuadas de transferencia, incluida la biotecnología y el conocimiento asociado; razón por la cual, el Estado deberá facilitar el acceso a las tecnologías pertinentes para la conservación y el uso sostenible de la biodiversidad, específicamente en cuanto se refiere a la actividad de generación de variedades por parte de personas físicas y jurídicas, públicas o privadas, por los beneficios que esto deriva al desarrollo y la competitividad agropecuaria nacional, sin perjuicio de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, industrial o de los derechos colectivos intelectuales sui géneris. En ese sentido, los actos impugnados resultan contrarios a los fines principales previstos por el ordenamiento jurídico, a fin de proteger los derechos de los obtentores de variedades vegetales, salvaguardando el derecho al uso por parte del pequeño y mediano agricultor, al rechazar de manera ilegítima e injustificada, la solicitud planteada por la empresa actora tendente a la inscripción de la variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas. 4) Corolario. Por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal estima que: i) Los acuerdos número dos, artículo seis, de la sesión número 609 del quince de diciembre del dos mil diez, y número dos, artículo seis de la sesión ordinaria número 616 del veintiocho de setiembre del dos mil once, adoptados por la Junta Directiva de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas; y el Oficio ONS 332-2010 del veinte de diciembre del dos mil diez, emitido por el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, adolecen de vicios de nulidad absoluta, por resultar sustancialmente contrarios al ordenamiento jurídico, específicamente a lo dispuesto en los artículos 7 párrafo 1º, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 párrafo 2º de la Constitución Política; 1 inciso 1, 7 y 8 inciso 1 del ADPIC (Ley 7475); 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d), 10, 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289); 1 incisos 1 y 3 de la Ley de Patentes de Invención, Dibujos y Modelos Industriales y Modelos de Utilidad (Ley 6867); 77, 78 y 88 de la Ley de Biodiversidad (Ley 7788); 11, 16 inciso 1), 131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, 221 inciso 1), 287 y 288 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 5, 7 y 12 de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley 8631); 34 inciso a), 60 y 61, 88 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 12907-A (los numerales 60 y 61 antes de la reforma por el artículo 1 del Decreto Ejecutivo 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004); 4, 7 a 11 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG y los principios de justicia, lógica, buena fe y confianza legítima; ii) De conformidad con lo dispuesto en los numerales 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 10, 15 incisos c) y d), 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley 6289; 56 a 61 del Reglamento a la Ley 6289 (tanto en su versión anterior y posterior a la reforma introducida por Decreto Ejecutivo número 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004); 5 de la Ley 8631 y 4 del Decreto Ejecutivo 35677-MAG; 288 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se mantiene el 18 de marzo del dos mil ocho, como fecha de presentación ante la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, de la solicitud planteada por la empresa demandante, tendente a la inscripción de la Variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, tal y como la propia Oficina Nacional de Semillas, ya había considerado en oficio número D.E.066-08 del veintiuno de marzo del dos mil ocho; iii) En consecuencia y de acuerdo a los artículos 7 y 12 de la Ley 8631, 7 a 11 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG, 221 inciso 1), y 287 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se ordena a la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, iniciar el trámite de la solicitud presentada por la empresa actora el dieciocho de marzo del dos mil ocho, conforme al procedimiento establecido en los artículos 11 a 24 d el Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG, 221 inciso 1), a fin de que resuelva lo que en derecho corresponda.

Vo.- SOBRE LA PRETENSIÓN INDEMNIZATORIA PLANTEADA EN ABSTRACTO. Si bien es cierto, el inciso m, sub inciso iii del artículo 122 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, establece la posibilidad de que el Tribunal condene al pago de daños y perjuicios en abstracto, cuando no conste su existencia y cuantía, siempre que sean consecuencia de la conducta administrativa o relación jurídica objeto de la demanda; también lo es, que ello no tiene la virtud de enervar la obligación establecida en el artículo 58 inciso 1.e) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, respecto a que cuando accesoriamente se pretendan daños y perjuicios -como en este caso- se concretará el motivo que los origina, en qué consiste y su estimación prudencial . En el caso concreto, la empresa demandante se limitó a indicar que los daños y perjuicios que pretende en abstracto, se derivan de la inactividad administrativa impugnada (folio 18 del expediente judicial), sin embargo, no indicó en qué consisten, como tampoco los estimó de manera prudencial, circunstancia que tal y como indica la representante del Estado, coloca a los demandados en estado de indefensión, toda vez que -en principio- la omisión en determinar estos aspectos, impide establecer si la presunta existencia y cuantía de los daños y perjuicios alegados, son o no consecuencia de la conducta objeto de la demanda. Ahora bien, es menester aclarar que contrario a lo que afirma la empresa actora, el objeto del proceso lo constituyen esencialmente las conductas formales emitidas por la ONS y no una inactividad administrativa en sentido estricto, toda vez que la ONS fundamentó el rechazo de la solicitud planteada el dieciocho de marzo del dos mil ocho, con base en una presunta ausencia de normas legales que en primera instancia, sustentaran la gestión planteada por la empresa accionante, y en segundo lugar, en la inexistencia de un reglamento que regulara el trámite y requisitos para atender su solicitud. Ahora bien y contrario a lo que afirma la empresa accionante, de la prueba allegada al expediente no se desprende que los daños y perjuicios cuya condena pretende en abstracto, sean consecuencia de la conducta administrativa objeto del proceso -presupuesto esencial para una condena en abstracto-, ya que mediante oficio número ONS 065-2010 DT del 30 de noviembre del dos mil diez, un funcionario del Programa de Semilla del Arroz de la ON S , le comunicó –en lo que interesa- a la empresa accionante que “…en caso de que se pueda otorgar la fecha de recibo de la carta GG-SEN-007-08 como la de presentación de una solicitud de protección de los derechos del obtentor acerca de la variedad Palmar 18, lo cual se encuentra en consulta legal, no habríamos afectado los derechos de Nombre143465 con la aceptación de la solicitud de (…), pues en todo caso su representada podría cobrar derechos de uso de la variedad a posteriori. En caso de una resolución de otorgamiento de derechos de obtentor a favor de Nombre143465, gustosamente le estaremos comunicando la cantidad de semillas que se le certificará al señor (…)” (folios 04 y 05 del expediente administrativo) . Ello por cuanto, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 1 y 23 de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales, ".. n o lesiona el derecho del obtentor, quien reserve y siembre en su propia explotación, dentro de los límites razonables y a reserva de la salvaguarda de los intereses legítimos de los obtentores, el producto de la cosecha que haya obtenido por el cultivo, en su propia explotación, de una variedad protegida o de una variedad cubierta por el inciso c) del artículo 18 de es t a Ley. Se exceptúan de esta disposición las variedades de las especies frutícolas, ornamentales y forestales, cuando se persigan fines comerciales. ..". En consecuencia y por todo lo expuesto, se declara improcedente la pretensión tendente a la condenatoria en abstracto al pago de daños y perjuicios, que plantea la parte actora.

VIo.- SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES DE FONDO. Este Tribunal llega a la conclusión de que la empresa Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A., cuenta con suficiente legitimación activa para participar en este proceso conforme al artículo 10 inciso a) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, ya que es a qui é n van dirigidos las conductas formales impugnadas . Además, la acción se dirige correctamente contra el Estado y la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, ya que tal y como lo dispone el artículo 12 inciso 2) del citado Código, pues aunque la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, al ser l a autor a de la conducta administrativa impugnada por el demandante (ver folios 18, 117 vuelto del expediente judicial y respaldo audiovisual de la audiencia preliminar ), constituye el principal llamado a defenderla y sustentarla cuando sea impugnada, no sólo porque es quién conoce su fundamento o justificación, sino porque las conductas objeto del proceso, provienen -en parte- del ejercicio de una competencia otorgada a la Oficina de Semillas, específicamente aquella que encuentra sustento en lo dispuesto por los artículos 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d), 10, 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289) ; 5 de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley 8631); 4 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG , en cuanto se refiere a que es el órgano competente para recibir, tramitar y resolver las solicitudes para la inscripción tanto en el Registro de Variedades Comerciales, como en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas y en este último caso, para la protección de los derechos del obtentor de nuevas variedades; también lo es, que el artículo 12 inciso 2 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, establece que se debe demandar tanto al órgano con personalidad jurídica instrumental, como al Estado o bien, al ente al cual se encuentre adscrito, a fin de garantizar una mejor defensa de la conducta administrativa. Por otra parte, el interés, se mantiene actual, en el tanto las conductas objeto del proceso siguen surtiendo efectos en la esfera jurídica de la demandante y requiere n de una resolución jurisdiccional que la resuelva. Finalmente, encuentra este órgano colegiado que debe acogerse parcialmente la excepción de falta de derecho interpuesta por la representante del Estado, únicamente –tal y como se analizó en el considerando V de esta sentencia- en cuanto a que resulta improcedente la pretensión tendente a que se condene en abstracto a los demandados al pago de daños y perjuicios . En consecuencia y de conformidad con todo lo expuesto en los considerandos III y IV de esta sentencia, se rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho en los demás extremos, y en consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda interpuesta por Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. contra el Estado y la Oficina Nacional de Semillas , en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose por denegada en lo que no se indique de manera expresa: i) Se declara la nulidad absoluta de los acuerdos número dos , artículo seis, de la sesión número 609 del quince de diciembre del dos mil diez, y número dos, artículo seis de la sesión ordinaria número 616 del veintiocho de setiembre del dos mil once, adoptados por la Junta Directiva de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas; y el Oficio ONS 332-2010 del veinte de diciembre del dos mil diez, emitido por el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, por resultar sustancialmente contrarios al ordenamiento jurídico, específicamente a lo dispuesto en los artículos 7 párrafo 1º, 39, 41 in fine, 47, 48, 129 párrafo 2º de la Constitución Política; 1 inciso 1, 7 y 8 inciso 1 del ADPIC (Ley 7475); 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 15 incisos c) y d), 10, 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas (Ley 6289); 1 incisos 1 y 3 de la Ley de Patentes de Invención, Dibujos y Modelos Industriales y Modelos de Utilidad (Ley 6867); 77, 78 y 88 de la Ley de Biodiversidad (Ley 7788); 11, 16 inciso 1), 131, 132, 133, 136, 158, 166, 221 inciso 1), 287 y 288 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 5, 7 y 12 de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (Ley 8631); 34 inciso a), 60 y 61, 88 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 12907-A (los numerales 60 y 61 antes de la reforma por el artículo 1 del Decreto Ejecutivo 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004); 4, 7 a 11 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG y los principios de justicia, lógica, buena fe y confianza legítima; ii) De conformidad con lo dispuesto en los numerales 1, 8 incisos c) y d), 10, 15 incisos c) y d), 20 incisos a) y b) de la Ley 6289; 56 a 61 del Reglamento a la Ley 6289 (tanto en su versión anterior y posterior a la reforma introducida por Decreto Ejecutivo número 31736, que entró en vigencia el 29 de marzo de 2004); 5 de la Ley 8631 y 4 del Decreto Ejecutivo 35677-MAG; 288 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se mantiene el 18 de marzo del dos mil ocho, como fecha de presentación ante la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, de la solicitud planteada por la empresa demandante, tendente a la inscripción de la Variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, tal y como la propia Oficina Nacional de Semillas, ya había considerado en oficio número D.E.066-08 del veintiuno de marzo del dos mil ocho; iii) En consecuencia y de acuerdo a los artículos 7 y 12 de la Ley 8631, 7 a 11 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG, 221 inciso 1), y 287 inciso 1) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se ordena a la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, iniciar el trámite de la solicitud presentada por la empresa actora el dieciocho de marzo del dos mil ocho, conforme al procedimiento establecido en los artículos 11 a 24 d el Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG, 221 inciso 1), a fin de que resuelva lo que en derecho corresponda ; iv) Se declara improcedente la pretensión tendente a la condenatoria en abstracto al pago de daños y perjuicios, que plantea la parte actora .

VIIo.- SOBRE COSTAS. De conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, considera este órgano colegiado que existe motivo para aplicar la excepción que fija la normativa y quebrar el postulado de condena al vencido, pues en la medida en que se acogió parcialmente la excepción de falta de derecho, únicamente en cuanto se declara improcedente la pretensión relacionada con la condenatoria en abstracto al pago de daños y perjuicios que plantea la parte actora ; dicha circunstancia permite calificar a ambas partes como litigantes de buena fe y con motivo bastante para litigar.

POR TANTO.

Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho interpuesta por el Estado , únicamente respecto a la pretensión tendente a la condenatoria en abstracto al pago de daños y perjuicios . En consecuencia, se rechaza la excepción de falta derecho en los demás extremos y se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda interpuesta por Semillas del Nuevo Milenio S.A. contra el Estado y la Oficina Nacional de Semillas , en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose por denegada en lo que no se indique de manera expresa: 1) Se declara la nulidad absoluta de los acuerdos número dos , artículo seis, de la sesión número 609 del quince de diciembre del dos mil diez, y número dos, artículo seis de la sesión ordinaria número 616 del veintiocho de setiembre del dos mil once, adoptados por la Junta Directiva de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas; y el Oficio ONS 332-2010 del veinte de diciembre del dos mil diez, emitido por el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, por resultar sustancialmente contrarios al ordenamiento jurídico ; 2) Se mantiene el 18 de marzo del dos mil ocho, como fecha de presentación ante la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, de la solicitud planteada por la empresa demandante, tendente a la inscripción de la Variedad Palmar 18 en el Registro de Variedades Protegidas, tal y como la propia Oficina Nacional de Semillas, ya había considerado en oficio número D.E.066-08 del veintiuno de marzo del dos mil ocho ; 3) S e ordena a la Oficina Nacional de Semillas, iniciar el trámite de la solicitud presentada por la empresa actora el dieciocho de marzo del dos mil ocho, conforme al procedimiento establecido en los artículos 11 a 24 d el Decreto Ejecutivo número 35677-MAG, 221 inciso 1), a fin de que resuelva lo que en derecho corresponda ; 4) Se resuelve este asunto sin especial condenatoria en costas.

Marianella Álvarez Molina Cynthia Abarca Gómez José Martín Conejo Cantillo PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTOR: SEMILLAS DEL NUEVO MILENIO S.A.

DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO Y LA OFICINA NACIONAL DE SEMILLAS