Rejection of preliminary defenses and suspension of proceedings pending constitutional review in Moín concessionRechazo de defensas previas y suspensión del proceso por acción de inconstitucionalidad en concesión de Moín

No. 8-2013-VI.

SEVENTH SECTION OF THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Annex A, Address01 at fifteen hours fifty minutes on the twenty-fourth of April of two thousand thirteen.

Ordinary contentious-administrative proceeding with preferential processing, brought by the UNION OF WORKERS OF Name415 AND RELATED PORT WORKERS (SINDICATO DE TRABAJADORES DE Nombre415 Y AFINES PORTUARIOS, SINTRAJAP), represented by its General Secretary, Name105141, single, with identity card number CED116503, resident of Limón (folio 24), against the STATE, in the person of its Procuradora B, Andrea Calderón Gassman, with identity card number CED116504 (folio 173); the COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC (CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA), represented by Nombre4349, married, identity card number CED116505, resident of Goicoechea and Nombre126582, divorced, identity card number CED116506, resident of Curridabat (folio 171); the BOARD OF PORT ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE ATLANTIC SLOPE (JUNTA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN PORTUARIA Y DE DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO DE LA VERTIENTE ATLÁNTICA, JAPDEVA), represented by its special judicial agents Cristopher Fuentes Ballestero, single, identity card number CED116507, resident of Turrialba and Nombre23029, single, identity card number CED116508, resident of San José, (folios 182 and 183); the NATIONAL CONCESSIONS COUNCIL (CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES), in the person of its special judicial agent Giovanny Muñoz Jiménez, married, identity card number CED116509, resident of San José (folio 306) and the concessionaire companies APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V and APM TERMINAL MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, represented by their special judicial agent Rolando Laclé Zúñiga, divorced once, attorney, with identity card number CED116510, resident of Escazú (274 to 275 and 303 to 304). All participants are of legal age, Costa Rican, and attorneys.

RESULTANDO:

1.- The Union of Workers of Name415 and Related Port Workers (Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios, SINTRAJAP) brings a contentious-administrative proceeding processed with preferential processing, so that the judgment orders—according to the party's adjustment of the twentieth of July of two thousand twelve—:

"(A) ... the non-conformity with the legal system of the following actions:

- agreement No. 073-11, Article II-a, of Ordinary Session No. 08-2011 of the Board of Directors of the Board of Port Administration and Development of the Atlantic Slope JAPDEVA; - agreement No. 018-MOPT-H of first of March of 2011 of the Executive Branch represented by the President of the Republic Laura Chinchilla Miranda, the Minister of Public Works and Transport Francisco José Jiménez Reyes, and the Minister of Finance Fernando Herrera Acosta, which orders the award of International Public Tender No. 2009LI-000001-00200 to the company APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; - "PUBLIC WORKS CONCESSION CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC SERVICE FOR THE DESIGN, FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE MOÍN CONTAINER TERMINAL" signed by the executive branch (President of the Republic, Minister of Public Works and Transport, Minister of Finance), the Board of Port Administration and Economic Development of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA), the concessionaire (APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima) and the awardee (APM Terminals Central America B.V.), signed on 13 February 2011; - act of approval (refrendo) of the contract indicated in the previous point issued by the Division of Administrative Procurement of the Comptroller General of the Republic issued in document DCA-0692 of 21 March 2012 (official communication 02739)." Additionally, and as a consequence of the foregoing, it requests that the nullity of all the previous actions be ordered, as well as the condemnation of the defendants to pay the costs of the proceeding. (Lawsuit at folios up to 23, and adjustment at folios 240 to 243.)

2.- By resolution of ten hours fifteen minutes on the twenty-fifth of July of two thousand twelve, this Tribunal declared the present proceeding as having preferential processing, the litis was joined, the National Concessions Council was included as a co-defendant, and a hearing was granted regarding the request for joinder made. (Folios 184 to 185) 3.- By order of fourteen hours thirty minutes on the fourth of July of two thousand twelve, the request for joinder was rejected and the lawsuit was transferred, for a period of five business days (folios 212 to 223).

4.- In their answers, the defendants opposed the lawsuit, asserting the following defenses: a) the State: preliminary defense of lack of jurisdiction regarding the alleged unconstitutionality by omission and the exception of lack of right; b) the Comptroller General of the Republic: the preliminary defenses of pendency of another suit (litis pendencia) and failure to exhaust administrative remedies (falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa) and the substantive exceptions of lack of standing to sue (legitimación activa) and be sued (legitimación pasiva) and lack of right; c.) the Board of Port Administration and Economic Development of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA): the preliminary defenses of lack of jurisdiction regarding the alleged unconstitutionality by omission, pendency of another suit, and res judicata (cosa juzgada); likewise, as substantive exceptions, it proposes the lack of standing to be sued and lack of right; d.) the National Concessions Council: the preliminary defense of pendency of another suit and the substantive exception of lack of right; and, e.) finally APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima and APM Terminal Central América B.V: they only assert the substantive exception of lack of right. (Folios 379 to 412, folios 255 to 272, 446 to 460; 309 to 345, 348 to 378, respectively.)

5. In accordance with Article 5, subsection 2) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, by resolution of sixteen hours on the seventeenth of August of the current year, this Tribunal granted a hearing to the plaintiff, so that it could address the defenses and exceptions asserted. (Folio 466 to 467.)

6.- By means of a brief filed on the twenty-seventh of August of the present year, the plaintiff answered the granted hearing, manifesting itself regarding the defenses of lack of jurisdiction and pendency of another suit.

Drafted by Judge Fernández Brenes, with the affirmative vote of judges Hess Araya and Córdoba Ramírez;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY DEFENSE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.- To resolve the alleged defense of lack of jurisdiction, the following considerations must be made:

First: It must be recalled what constitutes the justiciable object in the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, according to the constitutional mandate of numeral 49. Indeed, the original constituent, in the year nineteen forty-nine, created the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction and determined its object in the cited numeral (49) of the Political Constitution, specified by the reform of the derived constituent through Law number 3124, of the twenty-fifth of June of nineteen sixty-three, vested in the control "of the legality of the administrative function"; and the protection of "at least, the subjective rights and the legitimate interests of the administered"; for which reason it is plenary and universal. As can be observed at a glance, from this provision derives the explanation of several fundamental concepts: a.) The Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction refers to the review of the legality of all manifestations of the conduct of the Public Administration, thus comprising, the formal aspect, relating to the adoption of administrative acts (both the final act – in consideration of the non-necessity of exhausting administrative remedies – and the definitive act) or acts of a general and normative nature (regulations); the material aspect, consisting of the provision of public services, execution of acts, anomalous coercion (actions in declared emergency and urgency situations) and de facto actions (vías de hecho); and finally, the so-called administrative dysfunction or omissive conduct, both formal (relating to the omission of resolution in time of remedies, and which has generated the formulation in doctrine of the institute of the presumed act by which positive or negative silence is configured); and material. This concept is complemented by that of the "administrative-legal relationship," insofar as it protects all the legal situations of the administered, regulated by Administrative Law; and b.) This Jurisdiction reviews the conduct of the State as a whole, that is, it comprises the three Branches of the Republic and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, when they perform administrative functions, decentralized institutional and territorial entities and other Public Law institutions.

Second: In this lawsuit, the nullity is sought of several formal actions, all of them derived from the international public tender procedure number 2009LI-000001-0020, of the National Concessions Council, consisting of the public works concession with public service, for the construction and operation of the port terminals contemplated in phases two and three of the Port Master Plan, of the Port of Moín. Thus, it is requested to declare the non-conformity and, consequently, the nullity of the following actions:

- agreement No. 073-11, Article II-a, of Ordinary Session No. 08-2011 of the Board of Directors of the Board of Port Administration and Development of the Atlantic Slope JAPDEVA; - agreement No. 018-MOPT-H of first of March of 2011 of the Executive Branch represented by the President of the Republic Laura Chinchilla Miranda, the Minister of Public Works and Transport Francisco José Jiménez Reyes, and the Minister of Finance Fernando Herrera Acosta, which orders the award of International Public Tender No. 2009LI-000001-00200 to the company APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; - "PUBLIC WORKS CONCESSION CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC SERVICE FOR THE DESIGN, FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE MOÍN CONTAINER TERMINAL" signed by the executive branch (President of the Republic, Minister of Public Works and Transport, Minister of Finance), the Board of Port Administration and Economic Development of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA), the concessionaire (APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima) and the awardee (APM Terminals Central America B.V.), signed on 13 February 2011; - act of approval (refrendo) of the contract indicated in the previous point issued by the Division of Administrative Procurement of the Comptroller General of the Republic issued in document DCA-0692 of 21 March 2012 (official communication 02739)." Part of the legal basis for such request is the supposed (or rather alleged) unconstitutionality of Article 2 of the General Law of Public Works Concession with Public Services, number 7762, of the fourteenth of April of nineteen ninety-eight, which repealed Law number 7404, of the third of May of nineteen ninety-four. Said allegation is based on the fact that, with the new regulations, contracts for national and international docks and airports and railways do not have to go for approval (refrendo) to the Legislative Assembly, for their approval, in direct application of the provisions of Article 140, subsection 19) of the Political Constitution, and in violation of Constitutional Chamber ruling number 3789-92 and the Opinion of the Attorney General's Office C 119-94, of the twenty-first of July of nineteen ninety-four. It adds that said requirement was demanded in the repealed regulations and hence the unconstitutionality observed. From this, it derives the alleged illegality of the approval (refrendo) by the Comptroller General of the Republic, in document DCA-0692, of the twenty-first of March of two thousand twelve, which expressly authorizes the execution of the contract, with violation, the plaintiff alleges, of an essential constitutional procedure.

Third: Having reviewed the allegations made regarding jurisdiction, this Tribunal concludes that the defense of lack of jurisdiction alleged must be rejected. It is evident that it is not being requested that in this proceeding the alleged unconstitutionality by omission of Article 2 of the General Law of Public Works Concession with Public Services, number 7762, of the fourteenth of April of nineteen ninety-eight be declared; but rather that, by application of the supposed "unconstitutionality," the illegality (nullity) of the approval (refrendo) issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic be declared. Furthermore, it is evident that the allegation made in this proceeding is merely instrumental on the occasion of the unconstitutionality action that the union filed before the Constitutional Chamber on the twentieth of July of the current year and which is being processed in case file number 12-009578-0007-CO and which has already been admitted, by resolution of fifteen hours thirty-seven minutes on the seventeenth of October of two thousand twelve, according to communication made by that High Court on the past nineteenth of October (of two thousand twelve, visible at folios 525 to 527). In any case, it is deemed that the matter concerning the application of the regulations, in the terms proposed by the plaintiff, is an issue that must be reserved for judgment and is encompassed by the alleged substantive exception of lack of right. For these reasons, the rejection of the alleged lack of jurisdiction regarding the unconstitutionality by omission of Article 2 of Law 7762, proposed by the representations of the State and Name415, is appropriate.

II.- REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY DEFENSE OF PENDENCY OF ANOTHER SUIT (LITIS PENDENCIA).- Regarding the preliminary defense of pendency of another suit, it is appropriate to specify in doctrine that this legal concept is configured when "... there is another proceeding pending between the same parties, by virtue of the same cause and for the same object, that is, in the face of the coexistence of two claims whose elements are identical." (Nombre149594, Derecho Procesal Civil, Tomo VI, Argentina, 1987, p.103). For its part, jurisprudence has been consistent in pointing out that there must be identity of parties, cause, and object, so it is worth recalling what has been indicated in this regard in resolution number 315-2005, of nine hours on the thirtieth of August of two thousand five, issued by the Second Civil Tribunal, First Section, in which it considered the following:

"It is clear that in doctrine and jurisprudence it has been held that the exception of pendency of another suit (litispendencia), as a preliminary exception, has the purpose of preventing the simultaneous processing of two proceedings with the same content through the exclusion of the one promoted second, and requires the same identities as the exception of res judicata, and in this sense it is required that, without any variation of the identity between both proceedings, it occurs with respect to the subjects, the things in dispute, and the cause of action, so that for its acceptance it is necessary that between the pending suit and the one later promoted there exists perfect subjective, objective, and causal identity, the defense being ineffective in another case when the subjects and the claim are different ..." Thus, like the exception of res judicata, this defense (of pendency of another suit) has the purpose of avoiding the existence of contradictory jurisdictional rulings, in the face of proceedings in which there is identity of subjects, object, and cause, in order not to violate the principles of legal certainty and security, prevailing in a social and democratic system of Law, as is the case of the Costa Rican system. It also avoids the party asserting it from having to face two proceedings where the same aspect is discussed. Therefore, as a factual prerequisite for this defense to operate, there must exist on the docket at least two case files of the same nature with identity of parties, object, and cause, pending resolution before the same or different tribunals. Doctrinally it has been conceptualized as the prior existence in another competent judicial office of a proceeding still unresolved (in this regard, one can consult judgment number 335-2001, of eleven hours on the nineteenth of October of two thousand one, issued by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal.

III.- Having said the above and having reviewed the proceedings being processed before this Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, namely proceeding 11-001347-1027-CA to which 11-003975-1027-CA was joined, already resolved by judgment number 153-2012-VI of eight hours forty-five minutes on the sixth of August of the current year, and this proceeding being processed under number 12-001630-1027-CA, this Chamber concludes that the prerequisites for the configuration of the defense of pendency of another suit are not met, as there is no identity of subjects, object, and cause, as explained below:

a.) Regarding the subjects: In the first proceedings, already resolved, the plaintiffs are the Chamber of Banana Growers (Cámara de Bananeros, CANABA) and the Union of Workers of Name415 and Related Port Workers (SINTRAJAP) against the State, the Comptroller General of the Republic, the National Concessions Council, the Regulatory Authority of Public Services, the Board of Port Administration and Economic Development of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM Terminal Central América B.V. and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima. For its part, in this proceeding, the plaintiff is only the Union of Workers of Name415 and Related Port Workers (SINTRAJAP) against the State, the Comptroller General of the Republic, the National Concessions Council, the Board of Port Administration and Economic Development of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM Terminal Central América B.V. and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima. That is, the Chamber of Banana Growers does not appear as a plaintiff, nor does the Regulatory Authority of Public Services appear as a defendant.

b.) Regarding the object: Already in the order of fourteen hours thirty minutes on the fourth of July of two thousand twelve, this Tribunal indicated that it was dealing with claims that were not only compatible, but in principle identical, in that they required the declaration of non-conformity with the legal system and consequently their annulment, of practically the same actions, all derived on the occasion —it is repeated— of the international public tender procedure number 2009LI-000001-0020, of the National Concessions Council, consisting of the public works concession with public service, for the construction and operation of the port terminals contemplated in phases two and three of the Port Master Plan, of the Port of Moín. However, from a study of the indicated proceedings it is observed that not all the actions that were challenged in the joined proceedings are questioned in the action now being processed, and in this latter one, acts are questioned that were not the object of challenge in the first ones. Indeed, it is verified that there is identity of challenged actions only with respect to those questioned in this lawsuit, with respect to the lawsuit filed by the Chamber of Banana Growers and the lawsuit filed by the same union, only the act of awarding the contract, leaving aside the others that were heard in the joined proceedings, namely, from the lawsuit filed by the Chamber of Banana Growers: from the main claim: the award made by the National Concessions Council in agreement number 2 of extraordinary session No. 2-2011 of 28 February 2011, of international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Public Works Concession with public service for the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Container Terminal of Puerto Moín and awarded to the offeror APM Terminal Central America B.V.; and from its expansion: the act of the National Concessions Council in agreement number 2 of extraordinary session No. 2-2011 of 28 February 2011, of international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Public Works Concession with Public Service for the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Container Terminal of Puerto Moín and awarded to the offeror APM TERMINAL CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; the tender specifications of international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Public Works Concession with Public Service for the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Container Terminal of Puerto Moín and awarded to the offeror APM TERMINAL CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; the contract signed by the Executive Branch, the Executive Presidency of the Port Administration and Economic Development Board of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOIN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Public Works Concession with Public Service for the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Container Terminal of Puerto Moín, dated 30 August 2011; addendum No. 1 to the Public Works Concession Contract with Public Service for the Design, Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Moín Container Terminal, signed on 29 November 2011 and subscribed by the Executive Branch, the Executive Presidency of the Port Administration and Economic Development Board of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from international public tender 2009LI-000001-00200; and the new contract dated 13 February 2012, subscribed by the Executive Branch, the Executive Presidency of the Port Administration and Economic Development Board of the Atlantic Slope (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from international public tender 2009LI-000001-00200 promoted for "Public Works Concession with Public Service for the Financing, Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the New Moín Container Terminal. From the subsidiary claim: the declaration of nullity of the tariff structure of international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200, indicated in chapter 11, section 7.2, for using as a basis the traffic projection carried out in the master plan for the Limón/Moín complex, contracted to the company Royal Haskoning, which is not an updated economic feasibility study and is not supported by realistic parameters according to the volume of planting and export of fruits such as banana, pineapple, and melon; the declaration of nullity of the tariff structure of international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200, for contradiction to Article 3, subsection b of the ARESEP Law which establishes the principle of service at cost; the declaration of nullity of the act awarding international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200, for lacking justification of the tender procedure and motivation of the act based on univocal rules of science or technique due to not having technical studies such as environmental and economic feasibility studies; the annulment of agreement number 018-MOPT-H published in Supplement No. 16 to La Gaceta No. 54 of 17 March 2001 in which international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200 is awarded for establishing that in order to receive a discount of $20 to the tariff set in the economic offer, 15 measures are implemented in the award act, which will be contemplated in the contract; and from its expansion: the declaration of nullity of the economic assumption of volume projection, used in the formula of the tariff structure of international public tender 2009-LI-000001-00200, indicated in chapter 11, section 7.2 thereof, given in the Master Plan and updated based on the study given by the company ICICOR DE COSTA RICA, which serve as support to establish the $223 tariff; the requirement for the granting administration to generate its own estimates of cargo volumes, using updated data from recent years and which are generated in the annual reports of JAPDEVA; that the debt financing costs and the recognition of capital gains that the financial model contains be assessed, given the current low-interest conditions worldwide and the stimulus offered by governments to avoid falling into a new recession, the reduction of the internal rate of return from 17.5% to 15%; a level that was increased with the argument of the crisis, but which the Administration itself acknowledges is cyclical.

c.) Regarding the cause: For its part, differences are also observed in this element. Indeed, the legal basis for the challenge of the impugned actions is different in both processed proceedings. In the first ones, the defect of the award, contract, and approval thereof by the Comptroller General of the Republic was alleged, but due to the allegation of the absence of the environmental variable and the absence of the financial-tariff variable and the non-consideration, by the Regulatory Authority of Public Services, of the container demand projection, to provide economic sufficiency to the project. For its part, this lawsuit now being processed bases its claim on the following legal allegations: violation of the will of the contracting Administration, due to pressures from the Executive Branch, breach of an essential formal requirement of the contract, which is the approval (refrendo) of the contract by the Legislative Assembly, and finally, the violation of the autonomy of the Board of Port Administration and Economic Development of the Atlantic Slope, the only point on which there would be coincidence with the first, already adjudicated, proceeding.

Consequently, as the prerequisites of identity of subject, object, and cause are not met, the rejection of this defense is appropriate.

IV.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (FALTA DE AGOTAMIENTO DE LA VÍA ADMINISTRATIVA).- Finally, it is noted that the plaintiff union made no manifestation whatsoever regarding the preliminary defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, in its brief appearing at folios 504 to 511. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is considered that this is a matter that can be heard at the time of conducting the single hearing (audiencia única) typical of this type of proceeding; for which reason, its consideration is reserved for that procedural moment.

V.- REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCEEDING ON THE OCCASION OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION.- Finally, it is of importance for the processing of this matter that, by means of a note sent by the Constitutional Chamber via fax on the past nineteenth of October (visible at folios 525 to 528), this Tribunal was informed that by resolution of fifteen hours thirty-seven minutes on the seventeenth of October last, the unconstitutionality action filed by the plaintiff union here against the unconstitutionality by omission of Articles 2 subsections 2) and 3) and 5 subsection 4) of the General Law of Public Works Concession with Public Service, number 7762 and by connection the Public Works Concession Contract with public service for the design, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of the Moín container terminal was admitted; which is being processed in case file number 12-009578-0007-CO. Likewise, this Tribunal is aware that the respective edicts were published in the Judicial Bulletin numbers 216, 217, and 218, on the eighth, ninth, and twelfth of November of two thousand twelve. In this regard, numeral 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction provides in relevant part:

"Article 81.- If the President considers the requirements that have been mentioned to be fulfilled, he shall grant a hearing to the Attorney General's Office and to the counterparty appearing in the main matter, for a period of fifteen days, so that they may state what they deem convenient. At the same time, he shall order that a note be sent to the tribunal or body hearing the matter, so that it does not issue the final resolution before the Chamber has pronounced on the action, and shall order that a notice be published in the Judicial Bulletin, for three consecutive times, informing the tribunals and the bodies that exhaust administrative remedies that said lawsuit has been filed, so that in the proceedings or procedures in which the application of the law, decree, provision, agreement, or resolution is discussed, a final resolution is also not issued while the Chamber has not made the pronouncement of the case." Consequently, as this contentious proceeding appears as a prior matter to that case file and what the High Constitutional Tribunal ultimately decides will be of direct application to this case, it is appropriate to order the suspension of the processing of this proceeding, so that the remaining phases—conciliation, single hearing, and issuance of the judgment—are carried out once the unconstitutionality action that in case file No.

12-009578-0007-CO and the corresponding judgment having been duly notified to this Office; the foregoing, based on the provisions of Articles 75, 81 second paragraph, and 82 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and canon 82, subsection 4), of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Jurisdiction.

THEREFORE:

The preliminary defenses of lack of jurisdiction concerning the unconstitutionality by omission of Article 2 of Law 7762 and pendency of another action (litis pendencia) are rejected. The ruling on the preliminary defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies (falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa) is reserved for the moment the single hearing is held. The proceedings of this case are suspended until the unconstitutionality action being processed under case file number 12-009578-0007-CO before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is resolved and the judgment issued by the High Constitutional Court in that matter is brought to the full knowledge of this Authority.

Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Christian Hess Araya Felipe Córdoba Ramírez Case File No. 12-001630-1027-CA Contentious-Administrative Proceeding with preferential processing. Preliminary defenses.

Union of Workers of JAPDEVA and Related Port Workers (Sindicato de Trabajadores de JAPDEVA y Afines Portuarios, SINTRAJAP) against the State, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), JAPDEVA, the National Concessions Council (Consejo Nacional de Concesiones), APM Terminals Central América B.V, and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima Furthermore, it avoids the party raising it from having to face two proceedings where the same aspect is discussed. Therefore, as a factual prerequisite for this defense to operate, there must exist on the record at least two case files of the same nature with identity of parties, object, and cause, pending resolution before the same or different courts. Doctrine has conceptualized it as the prior existence in another competent judicial office of a process still unresolved (in this regard, see judgment number 335-2001, of eleven hours on October nineteenth, two thousand one, issued by the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo).

**III.-** Having said the above, and having reviewed the proceedings being processed before this Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, namely process 11-001347-1027-CA, to which 11-003975-1027-CA was consolidated, already resolved by judgment number 153-2012-VI of eight hours forty-five minutes on August sixth of the current year, and this process being processed under number 12-001630-1027-CA, this Chamber concludes that the prerequisites for the configuration of the defense of litis pendencia (litis pendencia) are not met, as there is no identity of subjects, object, and cause, as explained below:

a.) **In relation to the subjects**: In the first proceedings, already resolved, the plaintiffs are the Cámara de Bananeros (CANABA) and the Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) against the State, the Contraloría General de la República, the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM Terminal Central América B.V. and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima. Meanwhile, in this process, the plaintiff is solely the Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) against the State, the Contraloría General de la República, the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM Terminal Central América B.V. and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima. That is, the Cámara de Bananeros does not appear as a plaintiff party, nor does the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos appear as a defendant.

b.) **Regarding the object**: Already in the order of fourteen hours thirty minutes on July fourth, two thousand twelve, this Tribunal indicated that it was faced with claims that were not only compatible, but in principle identical, as they sought a declaration of non-conformity with the legal system and consequently their annulment, of practically the same actions, all derived on the occasion—it is repeated—of the international public bidding procedure (procedimiento de licitación pública internacional) number 2009LI-000001-0020, of the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, consisting of the public works concession with public service (concesión de obra pública con servicio público), for the construction and operation of the port terminals contemplated in phases two and three of the Plan Maestro Portuario, of Puerto de Moín. However, from a study of the indicated processes, it is observed that not all the actions that were challenged in the consolidated processes are questioned in the action now being processed, and in the latter, acts are questioned that were not the object of challenge in the first ones. Indeed, it is verified that there is identity of challenged actions only with respect to those questioned in this lawsuit, regarding the lawsuit filed by the Cámara de Bananeros and the lawsuit filed by the same union, only the act of awarding the contract, leaving aside the others that were heard in the consolidated processes, namely, from the lawsuit filed by the **Cámara de Bananeros**: **of the main claim**: of the award made by the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones in agreement number 2 of the extraordinary session No. 2-2011 of February 28, 2011, of the international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Concesión de Obra Pública con servicio público for the financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Container Terminal of Puerto Moín and awarded to the offeror APM Terminal Central America B.V.; and **of its expansion**: the act of the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones in agreement number 2 of the extraordinary session No. 2-2011 of February 28, 2011, of the international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público for the financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Container Terminal of Puerto Moín and awarded to the offeror APM TERMINAL CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; the bidding terms (cartel) of international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público for the financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Container Terminal of Puerto Moín and awarded to the offeror APM TERMINAL CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; the contract signed by the Poder Ejecutivo, the Presidencia Ejecutiva de la Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOIN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público for the financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Container Terminal of Puerto Moín, dated August 30, 2011; Addendum No. 1 to the Contrato de Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público for the Design, Financing, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Moín Container Terminal, signed on November 29, 2011, and entered into by the Poder Ejecutivo, the Presidencia Ejecutiva de la Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from international public bidding 2009LI-000001-00200; and the new contract dated February 13, 2012, signed by the Poder Ejecutivo, the Presidencia Ejecutiva de la Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from international public bidding 2009LI-000001-00200 promoted for "Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público for the Financing, Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the New Moín Container Terminal." From the **subsidiary claim**: the declaration of nullity of the tariff structure of international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, indicated in chapter 11, section 7.2, for using as a basis in the traffic projection carried out in the master plan for the Limón/Moín complex, contracted to the company Royal Haskoning, which is not an updated economic feasibility study and is not supported by realistic parameters according to the planting and export volume of fruits such as banana, pineapple, and melon; the declaration of nullity of the tariff structure of international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, for contradiction with article 3 subsection b of the Ley de la ARESEP which establishes the principle of cost-based service; the declaration of nullity of the act awarding international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, for lacking justification of the bidding process and a motivation of the act based on unequivocal rules of science or technique due to the lack of technical studies such as environmental and economic feasibility studies; the annulment of agreement number 018-MOPT-H published in Alcance No. 16 to La Gaceta No. 54 of March 17, 2001, in which international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200 was awarded for establishing that, for the receipt of a $20 discount on the tariff made in the economic offer, 15 measures are implemented in the award act, which will be contemplated in the contract; and **of its expansion**: the declaration of nullity of the economic assumption of the volume projection, used in the formula of the tariff structure of international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, indicated in chapter 11, section 7.2 thereof given in the Master Plan and updated based on the study provided by the company ICICOR DE COSTA RICA, which serve as support to establish the $223 tariff; the requirement for the granting administration to generate its own cargo volume estimates, using updated data from recent years that are generated in the annual reports of JAPDEVA; that the debt financing costs and the recognition of capital gains that the financial model contains be valued, given the current low-interest conditions worldwide and the stimulus offered by governments to avoid falling into a new recession, the reduction of the internal rate of return from 17.5% to 15%; a level that was increased with the argument of the crisis, but which the Administration itself recognizes is cyclical.

c.) **In relation to the cause**: For its part, differences are also observed in this element. Indeed, the legal basis for the challenge of the impugned actions is diverse in both processes. In the first ones, the defect of the award, contract, and its countersignature (refrendo) by the Contraloría General de la República was alleged, but based on the allegation of the absence of the environmental variable and the absence of the financial-tariff variable, and the non-consideration, on the part of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, of the container demand projection, to provide economic sufficiency to the project. Meanwhile, this lawsuit now being processed bases its claim on the following legal allegations: violation of the will of the contracting Administration, due to pressure from the Poder Ejecutivo, non-compliance with an essential formal requirement of the contract, which is the countersignature (refrendo) of the contract by the Asamblea Legislativa, and finally, the violation of the autonomy of the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica, the only point on which there would be coincidence with the first, already adjudicated process.

Consequently, as the prerequisites of identity of subject, object, and cause are not met, the rejection of this defense is appropriate.

**IV.- OF THE DEFENSE OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (FALTA DE AGOTAMIENTO DE LA VÍA ADMINISTRATIVA).-** Finally, it is noted that the plaintiff union did not make any statement regarding the preliminary defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies (falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa), in its brief appearing on folios 504 to 511. Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that this is a matter that can be heard at the time of holding the single hearing (audiencia única) typical of this type of process; for which reason, its hearing is reserved for that procedural moment.

**V.- OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCESS DUE TO THE ACTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY (ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD).-** Finally, it is of importance for the processing of this matter that, by means of a note sent by the Sala Constitucional via fax on the past nineteenth of October (visible on folios 525 to 528), this Tribunal was informed that by resolution of fifteen hours thirty-seven minutes on the past seventeenth of October, the action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) filed by the plaintiff union here against the unconstitutionality by omission of articles 2 subsections 2) and 3) and 5 subsection 4) of the Ley General de Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público, number 7762 and by connection the Contrato de concesión de obra pública con servicio público for the design, financing, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Moín container terminal, was admitted; which is processed in case file number 12-009578-0007-CO. Likewise, this Tribunal has knowledge that the respective edicts were published in the Boletín Judicial in numbers 216, 217, and 218, on the eighth, ninth, and twelfth of November, two thousand twelve. In this regard, numeral 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional provides, in what is relevant:

“*Artículo 81.-* If the President considers the requirements that have been mentioned to be met, he shall grant a hearing to the Procuraduría General de la República and to the counterparty appearing in the main matter, for a period of fifteen days, so that they may state what they deem appropriate. At the same time, he shall arrange to send a note to the court or body hearing the matter, so that it does not issue the final resolution before the Court has ruled on the action, and shall order that a notice be published in the Boletín Judicial, three consecutive times, informing the courts and the bodies that exhaust the administrative route that this lawsuit has been filed, so that in the processes or procedures in which the application of the law, decree, provision, agreement, or resolution is discussed, no final resolution is issued either while the Court has not made the ruling on the case." Consequently, as this contentious-administrative process appears as a prior matter to that case file, and what the High Constitutional Court finally decides is of direct application for this case, it is appropriate to order the suspension of the processing of this process, so that the remaining phases—conciliation hearing (conciliación), single hearing (audiencia única), and issuance of the judgment—are carried out once the action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) in case file No. 12-009578-0007-CO is resolved and the corresponding ruling is duly notified to this Office; the foregoing, based on the provisions of articles 75, 81 second paragraph, and 82 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional and canon 82, subsection 4), of the Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y Civil de Hacienda.

**POR TANTO:** The preliminary defenses of lack of jurisdiction (incompetencia) regarding the unconstitutionality by omission of article 2 of Law 7762 and litis pendencia (litis pendencia) are rejected. The resolution of the preliminary defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies (falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa) is reserved for the moment the single hearing (audiencia única) is held. The processing of this process is suspended until the action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) being processed under case file number 12-009578-0007-CO before the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia is resolved and this Authority is fully informed of the judgment issued by the High Constitutional Court in that matter.

**Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes** **Christian Hess Araya** **Felipe Córdoba Ramírez** Proceso Contencioso Administrativo with preferential processing. Preliminary defenses.

Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) against the State, Contraloría General de la República, Japdeva, Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, APM Terminals Central América B.V and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima **Exp. 12-001630-CA** **No. 8-2013-VI.** **SEVENTH SECTION OF THE CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.** Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Annex A, Address01 at fifteen hours fifty minutes on the twenty-fourth of April two thousand thirteen.

Ordinary contentious administrative proceeding with preferential processing, brought by the **SINDICATO DE TRABAJADORES DE Nombre415 Y AFINES PORTUARIOS (SINTRAJAP)** , represented by its General Secretary, **Nombre105141** , single, with identity card number CED116503, resident of Limón (folio 24), against the **STATE**, in the person of its Procuradora B, **Andrea Calderón Gassman**, with identity card number CED116504 (folio 173); the **CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA**, represented by **Nombre4349** , married, identity card number CED116505, resident of Goicoechea and **Nombre126582** , divorced, identity card CED116506, resident of Curridabat (folio 171); the **JUNTA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN PORTUARIA Y DE DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO DE LA VERTIENTE ATLÁNTICA (JAPDEVA)** , represented by its special judicial attorneys-in-fact **Cristopher Fuentes Ballestero**, single, identity card number CED116507, resident of Turrialba and **Nombre23029** , single, identity card number CED116508, resident of San José, (folios 182 and 183); the **CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES**, in the person of its special judicial attorney-in-fact **Giovanny Muñoz Jiménez**, married, identity card number CED116509, resident of San José (folio 306) and the concessionaire companies **APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V** and **APM TERMINAL MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA**, represented by their special judicial attorney-in-fact Rolando Laclé Zúñiga, divorced once, attorney, with identity card number CED116510, resident of Escazú (274 to 275 and 303 to 304). All participants are of legal age, Costa Rican, and attorneys.

**WHEREAS:** **1.-** The Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) brings a contentious administrative proceeding processed with preferential processing, so that the judgment may order -according to the party's adjustment of the twentieth of July two thousand twelve-:

"(A) ... the non-conformity with the legal system of the following actions:

*-* agreement No. 073-11, Article II-a, of the Ordinary Session No. 08-2011 of the Board of Directors of the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo de la Vertiente Atlántica JAPDEVA; *-* agreement No. 018-MOPT-H of the first of March 2011 of the Executive Branch represented by the President of the Republic Laura Chinchilla Miranda, the Minister of Public Works and Transport Francisco José Jiménez Reyes and the Minister of Finance Fernando Herrera Acosta, which orders the award of International Public Tender No. 2009LI-000001-00200 to the company **APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.** ; *-* "CONTRACT FOR THE CONCESSION OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH PUBLIC SERVICE FOR THE DESIGN, FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE MOÍN CONTAINER TERMINAL" signed by the executive (sic) branch (sic) (President of the Republic, Minister of Public Works and Transport, Minister of Finance), the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), the concessionaire (APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima) and the awardee (APM Terminals Central America B.V.), signed on February 13, 2011; *-* act of approval of the contract indicated in the preceding point issued by the Administrative Contracting Division of the Contraloría General de la República issued in document DCA-0692 of March 21, 2012 (official letter 02739)." Additionally, and as a consequence of the foregoing, it requests that the nullity of all the preceding actions be ordered, as well as the order against the defendants to pay the costs of the proceeding. (Lawsuit at folios to 23, and adjustment at folios 240 to 243.)

**2.-** By resolution at ten hours fifteen minutes on the twenty-fifth of July two thousand twelve, this Tribunal declared the present proceeding to have preferential processing, the joinder of issues (litis) was established, the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones was included as a co-defendant, and a hearing was granted regarding the filed request for consolidation (acumulación). (Folios 184 to 185) **3.-** By decree at fourteen hours thirty minutes on the fourth of July two thousand twelve, the request for consolidation (acumulación) was denied, and the lawsuit was transferred for a period of five business days (folios 212 to 223).

**4.-** In their answers, the defendants opposed the lawsuit, raising for that purpose the following defenses: **a)** the **State:** prior defense of lack of jurisdiction regarding the alleged unconstitutionality by omission and the plea of lack of right; **b)** the **Contraloría General de la República:** the prior defenses of pendency of another action (litis pendencia) and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the substantive pleas of lack of active and passive standing and lack of right; **c.)** the **Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA):** the prior defenses of lack of jurisdiction regarding the alleged unconstitutionality by omission, pendency of another action (litis pendencia), and res judicata (cosa juzgada); likewise, as substantive pleas it proposes the lack of passive standing and lack of right; **d.)** the **Consejo Nacional de Concesiones:** the prior defense of pendency of another action (litis pendencia) and the substantive plea of lack of right; and, **e.)** finally **APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima and APM Terminal Central América B.V:** they interpose only the substantive plea of lack of right. (Folios 379 to 412, folios 255 to 272, 446 to 460; 309 to 345, 348 to 378, respectively.)

**5.** In accordance with Article 5, subsection 2) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, by resolution at sixteen hours on the seventeenth of August of the current year, this Tribunal granted a hearing to the plaintiff, so that it could address the defenses and pleas raised. (Folio 466 to 467.)

**6.-** By a brief filed on the twenty-seventh of August of the current year, the plaintiff answered the granted hearing, making statements regarding the defenses of lack of jurisdiction and pendency of another action (litis pendencia).

Drafted by Judge **Fernández Brenes**, with the affirmative vote of Judges **Hess Araya** and **Córdoba Ramírez**; **CONSIDERING:** **I.- OF THE PRELIMINARY DEFENSE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.-** To resolve the alleged defense of lack of jurisdiction, the following considerations must be made:

**First:** It must be recalled what the justiciable object is in the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, in accordance with the constitutional mandate of numeral 49. Indeed, the original constituent, in the year nineteen forty-nine, created the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction and determined its object in the cited numeral (49) of the Political Constitution, specified with the reform by the derived constituent through Law number 3124, of June twenty-fifth, nineteen sixty-three, residing in the control “***of the legality of the administrative function***”; and the protection of “*, at least, the subjective rights and legitimate interests of the administered persons*”; therefore, it is **plenary** and **universal**. As can be seen at a glance, this provision explains several fundamental concepts: **a.)** The Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction refers to the review of the legality of **all manifestations of the conduct of the Public Administration**, thus comprising, <span style="text-decoration:underline">the **formal** one</span>, relating to the adoption of administrative acts (both the final act –in attention to the non-necessity of requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies– and the definitive one) or acts of a general and normative nature (regulations); <span style="text-decoration:underline">the **material** one</span>, consisting of the provision of public services, execution of acts, anomalous coercion (actions in declared emergency and urgency situations) and de facto actions; and finally, the so-called <span style="text-decoration:underline">**administrative dysfunction**</span> or <span style="text-decoration:underline">**omissive conduct**</span>, both formal (relating to the omission of timely resolution of appeals, which has generated the doctrinal formulation of the institute of the presumed act through which positive or negative silence is configured); and the material one. This concept is complemented by that of “*the legal-administrative relationship*”, insofar as it protects all the legal situations of the administered persons, regulated by Administrative Law; and **b.)** This Jurisdiction reviews the conduct of the State as a whole, that is, it comprises the three Powers of the Republic and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, when they perform an administrative function, the institutional and territorial decentralized entities, and other institutions of Public Law.

**Second:** In this lawsuit, the nullity of several formal actions is sought, all derived from the international public bidding procedure number 2009LI-000001-0020, of the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, consisting of the public works concession with public service, for the construction and operation of the port terminals contemplated in phases two and three of the Port Master Plan, of the Port of Moín. Thus, it is requested to declare the non-conformity and, consequently, the nullity of the following actions:

*- agreement No. 073-11, Article II-a, of the Ordinary Session No. 08-2011 of the Board of Directors of the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo de la Vertiente Atlántica JAPDEVA;* *- agreement No. 018-MOPT-H of March first, 2011 of the Executive Branch represented by the President of the Republic Laura Chinchilla Miranda, the Minister of Public Works and Transport Francisco José Jiménez Reyes and the Minister of Finance Fernando Herrera Acosta, which orders the award of International Public Bidding No. 2009LI-000001-00200 to the company **APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.** ;* *- "PUBLIC WORKS CONCESSION CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC SERVICE FOR THE DESIGN, FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE MOÍN CONTAINER TERMINAL" signed by the executive (sic) branch (sic) (President of the Republic, Minister of Public Works and Transport, Minister of Finance), the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), the concessionaire (APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima) and the awardee (APM Terminals Central America B.V.), signed on February 13, 2011;* *- act of approval (refrendo) of the contract indicated in the previous point issued by the Administrative Contracting Division of the Contraloría General de la República issued in document DCA-0692 of March 21, 2012 (official communication 02739)."* Part of the legal basis for such a requirement is the supposed (or rather alleged) unconstitutionality of Article 2 of the Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos, number 7762, of April fourteenth, nineteen ninety-eight, which repealed Law number 7404, of May third, nineteen ninety-four. Said allegation is based on the fact that, with the new regulations, contracts for national and international docks and airports and railways do not have to go for approval (refrendo) to the Legislative Assembly, in direct application of the provisions of Article 140, subsection 19) of the Political Constitution, and in contravention of Constitutional Chamber ruling number 3789-92 and the Opinion of the Procuraduría General de la República C 119-94, of July twenty-first, nineteen ninety-four. It adds that said requirement was demanded in the repealed regulations and hence the observed unconstitutionality. From this, it derives the alleged illegality of the approval (refrendo) of the Contraloría General de la República, in document DCA-0692, of March twenty-first, two thousand twelve, which expressly authorizes the execution of the contract, with violation, the plaintiff alleges, of an essential constitutional procedure.

**Third:** Having reviewed the allegations made regarding jurisdiction, this Court concludes that the alleged defense of lack of jurisdiction must be rejected. It is evident that it is not being required in this proceeding to declare the alleged unconstitutionality by omission of Article 2 of the Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos, number 7762, of April fourteenth, nineteen ninety-eight; but rather that, by application of the supposed "*unconstitutionality*", the illegality (nullity) of the approval (refrendo) issued for that purpose by the Contraloría General de la República be declared. Furthermore, it is evident that the allegation made in this proceeding is merely instrumental on the occasion of the action of unconstitutionality that the union filed before the Constitutional Chamber on July twentieth of the current year and that is processed in case file number 12-009578-0007-CO and to which a hearing has already been granted, by resolution at fifteen thirty-seven hours on October seventeenth, two thousand twelve, according to communication made by that High Court on the past nineteenth of October (of two thousand twelve, visible at folios 525 to 527). In any case, it is considered that what concerns the application of the regulations, in the terms proposed by the plaintiff, is a matter that must be reserved for judgment and is comprehensive of the alleged substantive defense (excepción de fondo) of lack of right. For these reasons, the rejection of the alleged lack of jurisdiction regarding the unconstitutionality by omission of Article 2 of Law 7762, proposed by the representations of the State and Nombre415, is in order.

**II.- OF THE PRELIMINARY DEFENSE OF LIS PENDENS (LITIS PENDENCIA).-** Regarding the preliminary defense of lis pendens (litis pendencia), it is pertinent to specify in doctrine that said legal figure is configured when "*... there is another pending proceeding between the same parties, by virtue of the same cause and for the same object, that is, in the face of the coexistence of two claims whose elements are identical.* " (Nombre149594, . <span style="text-decoration:underline">Derecho Procesal Civil</span>, Tomo VI, Argentina, 1987, p.103). For its part, jurisprudence has been consistent in stating that there must be identity of parties, cause, and object, so it is appropriate to highlight what has been indicated in this regard in resolution number 315-2005, at nine hours on August thirtieth, two thousand five, issued by the Tribunal Segundo Civil, Sección Primera, in which it considered the following:

"*It is clear that in doctrine and jurisprudence it has been held that the exception of litispendencia (sic), as a preliminary defense, has the purpose of preventing the simultaneous processing of two proceedings with the same content by means of the exclusion of the one initiated second, and requires the same identities as the exception of res judicata (cosa juzgada), and in this sense it is required that, without any variation of the identity between both proceedings, it occurs with respect to the subjects, the things in litigation, and the cause of action, so that for its estimation it is necessary that between the pending suit and the one promoted afterwards there exists perfect subjective, objective, and causal identity, the defense being ineffective in another case when the subjects and the claim are different ...* " So that, like the exception of res judicata (cosa juzgada), this defense (of lis pendens) has the purpose of avoiding the existence of contradictory jurisdictional rulings, in proceedings where there is identity of subjects, object, and cause, the foregoing, so as not to violate the principles of legal security and certainty, prevailing in a social and democratic system of Law, which is the case of the Costa Rican system. It also prevents the party who alleges it from facing two proceedings where the same aspect is discussed. Therefore, as a factual antecedent for said defense to operate, there must exist in the courts at least two case files of the same nature with identity of parties, object, and cause, pending resolution before the same or different courts. Doctrinally, it has been conceptualized as the prior existence in another competent judicial office of a still unresolved proceeding (in this regard, ruling number 335-2001, at eleven hours on October nineteenth, two thousand one, issued by the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo can be consulted.

**III.-** Having said the above and having reviewed the proceedings processed before this Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, namely proceeding 11-001347-1027-CA to which 11-003975-1027-CA was joined, already resolved through judgment number 153-2012-VI at eight hours forty-five minutes on August sixth of the current year, and this proceeding processed under number 12-001630-1027-CA, this Chamber concludes that the prerequisites for the configuration of the defense of lis pendens (litis pendencia) are not met, as there is no identity of subjects, object, and cause, as explained below:

**a.)** <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Regarding the subjects</span>: In the first proceedings, now resolved, the plaintiffs are the Cámara de Bananeros (CANABA) and the Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) against the State, the Contraloría General de la República, the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA) and the companies APM Terminal Central América B.V. and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima. Meanwhile, in this proceeding, the plaintiff is solely the Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) against the State, the Contraloría General de la República, the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA) and the companies APM Terminal Central América B.V. and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima. That is, the Cámara de Bananeros does not appear as a plaintiff party nor does the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos appear as a defendant.

**b.)** <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Regarding the object</span>: Already in the order at fourteen hours thirty minutes on July fourth, two thousand twelve, this Court indicated that the claims were not only compatible but, in principle, identical, as the declaration of non-conformity with the legal system and consequently its annulment was sought for practically the same actions, all derived on the occasion -it is repeated- of the international public bidding procedure number 2009LI-000001-0020, of the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, consisting of the public works concession with public service, for the construction and operation of the port terminals contemplated in phases two and three of the Port Master Plan, of the Port of Moín. However, from a study of the indicated proceedings, it is observed that not all the actions that were challenged in the joined proceedings are questioned in the action now being processed, and in the latter, acts are questioned that were not the object of challenge in the first ones. Indeed, it is confirmed that there is identity of challenged actions solely with respect to those questioned in this lawsuit, regarding the lawsuit filed by the Cámara de Bananeros and the lawsuit filed by the same union, solely the act of contract award, leaving out the others that were heard in the joined proceedings, namely, from the lawsuit filed by the **Cámara de Bananeros**: <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">of the principal claim</span>: the award made by the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones in agreement number 2 of the extraordinary session No. 2-2011 of February 28, 2011, of the international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Public Works Concession with Public Service for the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Puerto Moín Container Terminal and awarded to the bidder APM Terminal Central America B.V.; and <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">of its amplification</span>: the act of the Consejo Nacional de Concesiones in agreement number 2 of the extraordinary session No. 2-2011 of February 28, 2011, of the international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Public Works Concession with Public Service for the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Puerto Moín Container Terminal and awarded to the bidder APM TERMINAL CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; the international public bidding specifications 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Public Works Concession with Public Service for the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Puerto Moín Container Terminal and awarded to the bidder APM TERMINAL CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; the contract signed by the Executive Branch, the Executive Presidency of the Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOIN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from the international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, called Public Works Concession with Public Service for the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Puerto Moín Container Terminal, dated August 30, 2011; addendum No. 1 to the Public Works Concession Contract with Public Service for the Design, Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Moín Container Terminal, signed on November 29, 2011 and subscribed by the Executive Branch, the Executive Presidency of the Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from the international public bidding 2009LI-000001-00200; and the new contract dated February 13, 2012, signed by the Executive Branch, the Executive Presidency of the Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), and the companies APM TERMINALS MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derived from the international public bidding 2009LI-000001-00200 promoted for "Public Works Concession with Public Service for the Financing, Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the New Moín Container Terminal. From the <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">subsidiary claim</span>: the declaration of nullity of the tariff structure of the international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, indicated in chapter 11, section 7. 2, for using as a basis in the traffic projection carried out in the master plan for the Limón/Moín complex, contracted to the company Royal Haskoning, which is not an updated economic feasibility study (estudio de factibilidad económica actualizado) and is not based on realistic parameters according to the planting and export volume of fruits such as bananas, pineapples, and melons; the declaration of nullity of the tariff structure of international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, for contradiction with article 3 subsection b of the ARESEP Law that establishes the principle of service at cost; the declaration of nullity of the act awarding international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, for lacking justification of the bidding process having a motivation of the act based on the univocal rules of science or technique for not having technical studies such as environmental and economic feasibility studies (estudios de factibilidad ambiental y económico); the annulment of agreement number 018-MOPT-H published in Supplement No. 16 to La Gaceta No. 54 of March 17, 2001, in which international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200 is awarded, for establishing that for the receipt of a $20 discount on the tariff made in the economic offer, 15 measures are implemented in the award act, which will be contemplated in the contract; and <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">of its amplification</span>: the declaration of nullity of the economic assumption of the volume projection, used in the formula of the tariff structure of international public bidding 2009-LI-000001-00200, indicated in chapter 11, section 7.2 thereof, given in the Master Plan and updated based on the study given by the company ICICOR DE COSTA RICA, which serve as support to establish the $223 tariff; the requirement for the conceding administration to generate its own cargo volume estimates, using updated data from recent years and that are generated in the annual reports of JAPDEVA; that the debt financing costs and the recognition of capital gains that the financial model contains be valued, given the current low-interest conditions worldwide and the stimulus offered by governments to avoid a new recession, the reduction of the internal rate of return from 17.5% to 15%; a level that was increased with the crisis argument, but which the Administration itself recognizes is cyclical.

**c.) <span style="text-decoration:underline">Regarding the cause</span>**: For its part, differences are also observed in this element. Indeed, the legal basis for questioning the challenged actions is different in both processed proceedings. In the first ones, the defect of the award, contract, and its approval (refrendo) by the Contraloría General de la República was alleged, but due to the allegation of the absence of the environmental variable and the absence of the financial-tariff variable and the non-consideration, by the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, of the container demand projection, to give economic sufficiency to the project. For its part, this lawsuit now being processed bases its claim on the following legal allegations: violation of the will of the contracting Administration, due to pressure from the Executive Branch, non-compliance with an essential formal requirement of the contract, which is the approval (refrendo) of the contract by the Legislative Assembly, and finally, the violation of the autonomy of the Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica, the only point on which there would be coincidence with the first proceeding, already decided.

Consequently, as the prerequisites of identity of subject, object, and cause are not met, the rejection of this defense is in order.

**IV.- OF THE DEFENSE OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (FALTA DE AGOTAMIENTO DE LA VÍA ADMINISTRATIVA).-** Finally, it is noted that the plaintiff union made no statement regarding the preliminary defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies (falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa), in its brief found at folios 504 to 511.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is considered that this is a matter that can be addressed at the time of the single hearing (audiencia única) characteristic of this type of proceeding; for this reason, its consideration is reserved for that procedural moment.

**V.- OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCEEDING ON OCCASION OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION.-** Finally, it is of importance for the processing of this matter that, by means of a note sent by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) via fax on the past nineteenth of October (visible at folios 525 to 528), this Court was made aware that by resolution at fifteen hours thirty-seven minutes of the past seventeenth of October, the unconstitutionality action filed by the plaintiff union here against the unconstitutionality by omission of articles 2 subsections 2) and 3) and 5 subsection 4) of the General Law on Public Works Concession with Public Service, number 7762 and by connection the Public Works Concession with Public Service Contract for the design, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of the Moín Container Terminal was admitted; which is being processed under case file number 12-009578-0007-CO. Likewise, this Court is aware that the respective edicts were published in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) in numbers 216, 217 and 218, on the eighth, ninth and twelfth of November of two thousand twelve. In this regard, article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) provides where relevant:

“*Article 81.- If the President considers that the requirements mentioned above have been met, they shall grant a hearing to the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) and to the counterparty appearing in the main matter, for a period of fifteen days, so that they may state what they deem appropriate. At the same time, they shall order that a note be sent to the court or body hearing the matter, so that it does not issue the final resolution before the Chamber has ruled on the action, and they shall order that a notice be published in the Judicial Bulletin, three consecutive times, informing the courts and the bodies that exhaust the administrative channel that this claim has been filed, so that in the proceedings or procedures in which the application of the law, decree, provision, agreement or resolution is discussed, no final resolution is issued either until the Chamber has issued the ruling in the case.*” Consequently, since this contentious process appears as a prior matter to that case file and what the High Constitutional Court ultimately decides is of direct application to this case, it is appropriate to order the suspension of the proceeding in this process, so that the pending phases—conciliation, single hearing (audiencia única), and issuance of the judgment—are carried out once the unconstitutionality action in case file No. 12-009578-0007-CO has been resolved and the corresponding judgment has been duly notified to this Office; the foregoing, based on the provisions of articles 75, 81 second paragraph and 82 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and canon 82, subsection 4), of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Jurisdiction.

**THEREFORE (POR TANTO):** The preliminary defenses of lack of jurisdiction regarding the unconstitutionality by omission of article 2 of Law 7762 and lis pendens are rejected. Ruling on the preliminary defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies (falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa) is reserved for the moment when the single hearing (audiencia única) is held. The proceeding in this process is suspended until the unconstitutionality action being processed under case file number 12-009578-0007-CO before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is resolved and the judgment issued by the High Constitutional Court in that matter is brought to the full knowledge of this Authority.

**Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes** **Christian Hess Araya****Felipe Córdoba Ramírez** Contentious-Administrative Proceeding with preferential processing. Preliminary defenses.

Union of Workers of Nombre415 and Related Port Workers (Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios, SINTRAJAP) against the State, Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), Japdeva, National Council of Concessions (Consejo Nacional de Concesiones), APM Terminals Central América B.V and APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima

No. 8-2013-VI.

SECCIÓN SÉTIMA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A, Dirección01 a las quince horas cincuenta minutos del veinticuatro de abril del dos mil trece.

Proceso ordinario contencioso administrativo con trámite preferente, promovido por el SINDICATO DE TRABAJADORES DE Nombre415 Y AFINES PORTUARIOS (SINTRAJAP), representado por su Secretario General, Nombre105141 , soltero, con cédula de identidad número CED116503, vecino de Limón (folio 24), contra el ESTADO, en la persona de su Procuradora B, Andrea Calderón Gassman, con cédula de identidad número CED116504 (folio 173); la CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, representada por Nombre4349 , casado, cédula de identidad número CED116505, vecino de Goicoechea y Nombre126582 , divorciada, cédula CED116506 vecina de Curridabat (folio 171); la JUNTA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN PORTUARIA Y DE DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO DE LA VERTIENTE ATLÁNTICA (JAPDEVA), representada por sus apoderados especiales judiciales Cristopher Fuentes Ballestero, soltero, cédula de identidad número CED116507, vecino de Turrialba y Nombre23029 , soltero, cédula de identidad número CED116508, vecino de San José, (folios 182 y 183); el CONSEJO NACIONAL DE CONCESIONES, en la persona de su apoderado especial judicial Giovanny Muñoz Jiménez, casado cédula número CED116509 vecino de San José (folio 306) y las sociedades concesionarias APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V y APM TERMINAL MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, representadas por su apoderado especial judicial Rolando Laclé Zúñiga, divorciado una vez, abogado, con cédula de identidad número CED116510, vecino de Escazú (274 a 275 y 303 a 304). Todos los intervinientes son mayores, costarricenses y abogados.

RESULTANDO:

1.- El Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) promueve proceso contencioso administrativo tramitado con trámite preferente, para que en sentencia se disponga -según ajuste de la parte del veinte de julio del dos mil doce-:

"(A) ... la disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico de las siguientes actuaciones:

- acuerdo No. 073-11, Artículo II-a, de la Sesión Ordinaria No. 08-2011 del Consejo de Administración de la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo de la Vertiente Atlántica JAPDEVA; - acuerdo No. 018-MOPT-H de primero de marzo del 2011 del Poder Ejecutivo representado por la señora Presidenta de la República Laura Chinchilla Miranda, el señor Ministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes Francisco José Jiménez Reyes y el señor Ministro de Hacienda Fernando Herrera Acosta, que dispone la adjudicación de la Licitación Pública Internacional No. 2009LI-000001-00200 a la empresa APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; - "CONTRATO DE CONCESIÓN DE OBRA PÚBLICA CON SERVICIO PÚBLICO PARA EL DISEÑO, FINANCIAMIENTO, CONSTRUCCIÓN, OPERACIÓN Y MANTENIMIENTO DE LA TERMINAL DE CONTENEDORES DE MOÍN" firmado por el poder (sic) ejecutivo (sic)(Presidenta de la República, Ministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes, Ministro de Hacienda), la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), el concesionario (APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima) y el adjudicatario (APM Terminals Central America B.V.), firmado el 13 de febrero 2011; - acto de refrendo del contrato indicado en el punto anterior emitido por la División de Contratación Administrativa de la Contraloría General de la República emitido en el documento DCA-0692 de 21 de marzo de 2012 (oficio 02739)." Adicionalmente, y como consecuencia de lo anterior, requiere que se disponga la nulidad de todas las anteriores actuaciones, así como la condenatoria -de las demandadas- al pago de las costas del proceso. (Demanda a folios a 23, y ajuste a folios 240 a 243. )

2.- Mediante resolución de las diez horas quince minutos del veinticinco de julio del dos mil doce, este Tribunal declaró de trámite preferente el presente proceso, se integró la litis, se tuvo como codemandado al Consejo Nacional de Concesiones y se confirió audiencia sobre la solicitud de acumulación formulada. (Folios 184 a 185) 3.- Por auto de las catorce horas treinta minutos del cuatro de julio del dos mil doce, se rechazó la solicitud de acumulación y se confirió traslado de la demanda, por el plazo de cinco días hábiles (folios 212 a 223).

4.- En sus contestaciones, las demandadas se opusieron a la demanda oponiendo para ello las siguientes defensas: a) el Estado: defensa previa de incompetencia en lo que atañe a la alegada inconstitucionalidad por omisión y la excepción de falta de derecho; b) la Contraloría General de la República: las defensas previas de litis pendencia y falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa y las excepciones de fondo de falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y falta de derecho; c.) la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA): las defensas previas de falta de competencia en lo atinente a la alegada inconstitucionalidad por omisión, litis pendencia y cosa juzgada; asimismo, como excepciones de fondo propone la falta de legitimación pasiva y falta de derecho; d.) el Consejo Nacional de Concesiones: la defensa previa de litis pendencia y la excepción de fondo de falta de derecho; y, e.) finalmente APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima y APM Terminal Central América B.V: interponen únicamente la excepción de fondo de falta de derecho. (Folios 379 a 412, folios 255 a 272, 446 a 460; 309 a 345, 348 a 378, respectivamente.)

5. De conformidad con el artículo 5 inciso 2) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, mediante resolución de las dieciséis horas del diecisiete de agosto del año en curso, este Tribunal dio audiencia a la parte actora, a efecto de que se refiriera a las defensas y excepciones interpuestas. (Folio 466 a 467.)

6.- Mediante escrito presentado el veintisiete de agosto del presente año, la parte actora contestó la audiencia concedida, manifestándose respecto de las defensas de incompetencia y litis pendencia.

Redacta la Juez Fernández Brenes, con el voto afirmativo de los jueces Hess Araya y Córdoba Ramírez;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- DE LA DEFENSA PREVIA DE INCOMPETENCIA.- Para resolver la alegada defensa de incompetencia, se deben hacer las siguientes consideraciones:

Primero: Debe recordarse cuál es el objeto justiciable en la Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa, conforme al mandato constitucional del numeral 49. En efecto, el constituyente originario, en el año de mil novecientos cuarenta y nueve creó la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa y determinó su objeto en el citado numeral (49) de la Constitución Política, precisado con la reforma del constituyente derivado mediante la Ley número 3124, del veinticinco de junio de mil novecientos sesenta y tres, residenciado en el control “de la legalidad de la función administrativa”; y la tutela de “al menos, los derechos subjetivos y los intereses legítimos de los administrados”; por lo que es plenaria y universal. Como se observa a simple vista, de esta disposición se deriva la explicación de varios conceptos fundamentales: a.) La Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa está referida la revisión de la legalidad de todas las manifestaciones de la conducta de la Administración Pública, comprendiendo así, la formal, relativa a la adopción de actos administrativos (tanto del acto final –en atención a la no necesidad de la exigencia del agotamiento de la vía administrativa- como del definitivo) o de actos de carácter general y normativo (reglamentos); la material, consistente en la prestación de servicios públicos, ejecución de actos, coacción anómala (actuaciones en situaciones de emergencia y urgencia declarada) y vías de hecho; y finalmente, la denominada disfunción administrativa o conducta omisiva, tanto formal (relativa a la omisión de resolución en tiempo de los recursos, y que ha generado la formulación en doctrina del instituto del acto presunto por el que se configuran el silencio positivo o negativo); como la material. Este concepto se complementa con el de “la relación jurídica-administrativa”, en tanto tutela todas las situaciones jurídicas de los administrados, reguladas por el Derecho Administrativo; y b.) Esta Jurisdicción revisa la conducta del Estado en su conjunto, esto es, comprende a los tres Poderes de la República y el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, cuando realicen función administrativa, las entidades descentralizadas institucionales y por el territorio y demás instituciones del Derecho Público.

Segundo: En esta demanda, se pretende la nulidad de varias actuaciones formales, todas ellas, derivadas del procedimiento de licitación pública internacional número 2009LI-000001-0020, del Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, consistente en la concesión de obra pública con servicio público, de la construcción y operación de las terminales portuarias contempladas en las fases dos y tres del Plan Maestro Portuario, del Puerto de Moín. Así, se pide declarar la disconformidad y, consecuentemente, la nulidad de las siguientes actuaciones:

- acuerdo No. 073-11, Artículo II-a, de la Sesión Ordinaria No. 08-2011 del Consejo de Administración de la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo de la Vertiente Atlántica JAPDEVA; - acuerdo No. 018-MOPT-H de primero de marzo del 2011 del Poder Ejecutivo representado por la señora Presidenta de la República Laura Chinchilla Miranda, el señor Ministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes Francisco José Jiménez Reyes y el señor Ministro de Hacienda Fernando Herrera Acosta, que dispone la adjudicación de la Licitación Pública Internacional No. 2009LI-000001-00200 a la empresa APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; - "CONTRATO DE CONCESIÓN DE OBRA PÚBLICA CON SERVICIO PÚBLICO PARA EL DISEÑO, FINANCIAMIENTO, CONSTRUCCIÓN, OPERACIÓN Y MANTENIMIENTO DE LA TERMINAL DE CONTENEDORES DE MOÍN" firmado por el poder (sic) ejecutivo (sic)(Presidenta de la República, Ministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes, Ministro de Hacienda), la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), el concesionario (APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima) y el adjudicatario (APM Terminals Central America B.V.), firmado el 13 de febrero 2011; - acto de refrendo del contrato indicado en el punto anterior emitido por la División de Contratación Administrativa de la Contraloría General de la República emitido en el documento DCA-0692 de 21 de marzo de 2012 (oficio 02739)." Parte del fundamento jurídico para tal requerimiento, es la supuesta (o más bien alegada) inconstitucionalidad del artículo 2 de la Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos, número 7762, del catorce de abril de mil novecientos noventa y ocho, que derogó la Ley número 7404, del tres de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro. Dicho alegato se sustenta en que, con la nueva normativa, las contrataciones en los muelles y aeropuertos nacionales e internacionales y ferrocarriles, no tienen que ir en refrendo a la Asamblea Legislativa, para su aprobación, en aplicación directa de lo dispuesto en el artículo 140 inciso 19) de la Constitución Política, y en contravención de las sentencia de la Sala Constitucional número 3789-92 y el Dictamen de la Procuraduría General de la República C 119-94, del veintiuno de julio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro. Agrega, que dicho requisito era exigido en la normativa derogada y de ahí la inconstitucionalidad observada. De ahí, deriva la alegada ilegalidad del refrendo de la Contraloría General de la República, en documento DCA-0692, del veintiuno de marzo del dos mil doce, que autoriza de manera expresa la ejecución del contrato, con violación, alega el actor, de un trámite constitucional esencial.

Tercero: Revisadas las alegaciones formuladas sobre la competencia, concluye este Tribunal que la defensa de incompetencia alegada debe ser rechaza. Es evidente que no se está requiriendo que en este proceso se declare la alegada inconstitucionalidad por omisión del artículo 2 de la Ley General de Concesión de Obras Públicas con Servicios Públicos, número 7762, del catorce de abril de mil novecientos noventa y ocho; sino que, por aplicación de la supuesta "inconstitucionalidad", se declare la ilegalidad (nulidad) del refrendo que al efecto dictó la Contraloría General de la República. Además, resulta evidente que el alegato que se hace en este proceso es meramente instrumental con ocasión de la acción de inconstitucionalidad que el sindicato interpuso ante la Sala Constitucional el veinte de julio del año en curso y que se tramita en expediente número 12-009578-0007-CO y que al que ya se le dió curso, mediante resolución de las quince horas treinta y siete minutos del diecisiete de octubre del dos mil doce, según comunicación que hizo ese Alto Tribunal el pasado diecinueve de octubre (del dos mil doce, visible a folios 525 a 527). En todo caso, se estima que lo concerniente a la aplicación de la normativa, en los términos propuestos por la parte actora, es un asunto que debe reservarse para sentencia y es comprensivo de la alegada excepción de fondo de falta de derecho. Por tales motivos, procede el rechazo de la alegada incompetencia en lo atinente a la inconstitucionalidad por omisión del artículo 2 de la Ley 7762, propuestas por las representaciones del Estado y Nombre415.

II.- DE LA DEFENSA PREVIA DE LITIS PENDENCIA.- En cuanto a la defensa previa de litis pendencia, conviene precisar en doctrina, se configura dicha figura jurídica cuando "... existe otro proceso pendiente entre las mismas partes, en virtud de la misma causa y por el mismo objeto, es decir, frente a la coexistencia de dos pretensiones cuyos elementos son idénticos.” (Nombre149594, . Derecho Procesal Civil, Tomo VI, Argentina, 1987, p.103). Por su parte, la jurisprudencia ha sido conteste en señalar que debe existir identidad de partes, causa y objeto, por lo que conviene rescatar lo que se ha indicado al respecto en la resolución número 315-2005, de las nueve horas del treinta agosto del dos mil cinco, dictada por el Tribunal Segundo Civil, Sección Primera, en que consideró lo siguiente:

"Es claro que en doctrina y jurisprudencia se ha sostenido que la excepción de litispendencia (sic), como excepción previa, tiene por finalidad impedir la simultánea tramitación de dos procesos con igual contenido mediante la exclusión del promovido en segundo lugar, y requiere las mismas identidades de la excepción de cosa juzgada, y en tal sentido se exige que, sin variación alguna de la identidad entre ambos procesos, se produzca en cuanto a los sujetos, a las cosas en litigio y a la causa de pedir, de suerte que para su estimación es necesario que entre el pleito pendiente y el promovido después exista perfecta identidad subjetiva, objetiva y causal siendo ineficaz la defensa en otro caso cuando los sujetos y la pretensión sean distintos ..." De manera que, al igual que la excepción de cosa juzgada, esta defensa (de litis pendencia) tiene como propósito evitar la existencia de fallos jurisdiccionales contradictorios, ante procesos en los que exista identidad de sujetos, objeto y causa, lo anterior, para no vulnerar los principios de seguridad y certeza jurídica, imperantes en un sistema social y democrático de Derecho, cual es el caso del sistema costarricense. Además evita a la parte que la alega, el hacer frente a dos procesos donde se discute el mismo aspecto. Por ello, como antecedente fáctico para que opere dicha defensa, deben existir en estrados, al menos dos expedientes de igual naturaleza con identidad de partes, objeto y causa, pendientes de resolución ante el mismo o diversos tribunales. Doctrinariamente se ha conceptualizado como la previa existencia en otro despacho judicial competente, de un proceso todavía sin resolver (al respecto, puede consultarse la sentencia número 335-2001, de las once horas del diecinueve de octubre del dos mil uno, dictada por el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo.

III.- Dicho lo anterior y revisados los procesos que se tramitan ante esta Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, a saber el proceso 11-001347-1027-CA al que se le acumuló el 11-003975-1027-CA, ya resueltos mediante sentencia número 153-2012-VI de las ocho horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del seis de agosto del año en curso, y este proceso que se tramita con número 12-001630-1027-CA, concluye esta Cámara que no se cumplen los presupuestos para la configuración de la defensa de litis pendencia, al no existir identidad de sujetos, objeto y causa, según se explica a continuación:

a.) En relación con los sujetos: En los primeros procesos, ya resueltos, figuran como actores la Cámara de Bananeros (CANABA) y el Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) contra el Estado, la Contraloría General de la República, el Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA) y las sociedades APM Terminal Central América B.V. y APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima. Por su parte, en este proceso, el actor es únicamente el Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) contra el Estado, la Contraloría General de la República, el Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA) y las sociedades APM Terminal Central América B.V. y APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima. Es decir, no figura como parte actora la Cámara de Bananeros ni como demandada la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos.

b.) En cuanto al objeto: Ya en el auto de las catorce horas treinta minutos del cuatro de julio del dos mil doce, este Tribunal indicó que se estaba ante pretensiones, no sólo compatibles, sino que en principio idénticas, al requerirse la declaratoria de disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico y consecuentemente su anulación, de prácticamente las mismas actuaciones, todas derivadas con ocasión -se repite- del procedimiento de licitación pública internacional número 2009LI-000001-0020, del Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, consistente en la concesión de obra pública con servicio público, de la construcción y operación de las terminales portuarias contempladas en las fases dos y tres del Plan Maestro Portuario, del Puerto de Moín. Sin embargo de un estudio de los procesos indicados se observa que, no todas las actuaciones que se impugnaron en los procesos acumulados se cuestionan en la acción que ahora se tramita, y en esta última, se cuestionan actos que no fueron objeto de impugnación en los primeros. En efecto, se constata que existe identidad de actuaciones impugnadas únicamente respecto de las que se cuestionan en esta demanda, respecto de la demanda interpuesta por la Cámara de Bananeros y de la demanda interpuesta por el mismo sindicato, únicamente el acto de adjudicación del contrato, dejándose por fuera las otras que se conocieron en los procesos acumulados, a saber, de la demanda interpuesta por la Cámara de Bananeros: de la pretensión principal: de la adjudicación realizada por parte del Consejo Nacional de Concesiones en el acuerdo número 2 de la sesión extraordinaria No. 2-2011 del 28 de febrero del 2011, de la licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200, llamada Concesión de Obra Pública con servicio público para el financiamiento, diseño, construcción, operación y mantenimiento de la Terminal de contenedores de Puerto Moín y adjudicada al oferente APM Terminal Central America B.V.; y de su ampliación: el acto del Consejo Nacional de Concesiones en el acuerdo número 2 de la sesión extraordinaria No. 2-2011 del 28 de febrero del 2011, de la licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200, llamada Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público para el financiamiento, diseño, construcción, operación y mantenimiento de la Terminal de Contenedores de Puerto Moín y adjudicada al oferente APM TERMINAL CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; el cartel de licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200, llamada Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público para el financiamiento, diseño, construcción, operación y mantenimiento de la Terminal de Contenedores de Puerto Moín y adjudicada al oferente APM TERMINAL CENTRAL AMERICA B.V.; el contrato que suscribió el Poder Ejecutivo, la Presidencia Ejecutiva de la Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), y las empresas APM TERMINALS MOIN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derivado de la licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200, llamada Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público para el financiamiento, diseño, construcción, operación y mantenimiento de la Terminal de Contenedores de Puerto Moín, con fecha del 30 de agosto del 2011; la adenda No. 1 al Contrato de Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público para el Diseño, Financiamiento, Construcción, Operación y Mantenimiento de la Terminal de Contenedores de Moín, firmada el día 29 de noviembre del 2011 y suscrita por el Poder Ejecutivo, la Presidencia Ejecutiva de la Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), y las empresas APM TERMINALS MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derivado de la licitación pública internacional 2009LI-000001-00200; y el nuevo contrato de fecha 13 de febrero del 2012, suscrito por el Poder Ejecutivo, la Presidencia Ejecutiva de la Junta Administradora Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica (JAPDEVA), y las empresas APM TERMINALS MOÍN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y APM TERMINALS CENTRAL AMERICA B.V. derivado de la licitación pública internacional 2009LI-000001-00200 promovida para "Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público para el Financiamiento, Diseño, Construcción, Operación y Mantenimiento de la Nueva Terminal de Contenedores de Moín. De la pretensión subsidiaria: la declaratoria de la nulidad de la estructura tarifaria de la licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200, señalada en el capítulo 11, apartado 7. 2, por utilizar como base en la proyección del tráfico realizada en el plan maestro para el complejo Limón/Moín, contratado a la empresa Royal Haskoning, el cual no es un estudio de factibilidad económica actualizado y no se encuentra sustentado en parámetros realistas de acuerdo al volumen de siembra y exportación de las frutas como el banano, piña y melón; la declaratoria de la nulidad de la estructura tarifaria de licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200, por contradicción al artículo 3 inciso b de la Ley de la ARESEP que establece el principio del servicio al costo; la declaratoria de nulidad del acto que adjudica la licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200, por carecer de justificación del proceso licitatorio de una motivación del acto basado en las reglas unívocas de la ciencia o la técnica por no tener estudios técnicos como los estudios de factibilidad ambiental y económico; la anulación del acuerdo número 018-MOPT-H publicado en el Alcance No. 16 a La Gaceta No. 54 del 17 de marzo del 2001 en el que se adjudica la licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200 por establecer que para la recepción de un descuento de $20 a la tarifa hecha en la oferta económica, se implementan 15 medidas en el acto de adjudicación, que se contemplarán en el contrato; y de su ampliación: la declaratoria de nulidad del supuesto económico de la proyección de volumen, utilizado en la fórmula de la estructura tarifaria de la licitación pública internacional 2009-LI-000001-00200, señalada en el capítulo 11, apartado 7.2 de la misma dado en el Plan Maestro y actualizado con base al estudio dado por la empresa ICICOR DE COSTA RICA, que sirven de sustento para establecer la tarifa de $223; la exigencia a la administración concedente generar sus propias estimaciones de volúmenes de carga, utilizando los datos actualizados de años recientes y que se generan en los informes anuales de JAPDEVA; que se valoren los costos de financiamiento de la deuda y el reconocimiento a las ganancias de capital que el modelo financiero contiene, dadas las actuales condiciones de baja de interés a nivel mundial y al estímulo que ofrecen los gobiernos para no caer en una nueva recesión, la rebaja de la tasa interna de retorno del 17.5% al 15%; nivel que se incrementó con el argumento de la crisis, pero que la misma Administración reconoce que esta es cíclica.

c.) En relación a la causa: Por su parte, también en este elemento se observan diferencias. En efecto, el fundamento jurídico del cuestionamiento de las actuaciones impugnadas es diverso en ambos procesos tramitados. En los primeros, se alegó el vicio de la adjudicación, contrato y refrendo del mismo por parte de la Contraloría General de la República, pero por la alegación de la ausencia de la variable ambiental y la ausencia de la variable financiera-tarifaria y la no consideración, de parte de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, de la proyección de la demanda de contenedores, para dar suficiencia económica al proyecto. Por su parte, esta demanda que ahora se tramita, sustenta su pretensión en las siguientes alegaciones de derecho: violación de la voluntad de la Administración contratante, por presiones del Poder Ejecutivo, incumplimiento de un requisito formal esencial del contrato, cual es el refrendo del contrato por parte de la Asamblea Legislativa, y finalmente, la violación de la autonomía de la Junta de Administración Portuaria y de Desarrollo Económico de la Vertiente Atlántica, único punto en el cual existiría coincidencia con el primero proceso, ya fallado.

Consecuentemente, al no cumplirse los presupuestos de identidad de sujeto, objeto, causa, procede el rechazo de esta defensa.

IV.- DE LA DEFENSA DE FALTA DE AGOTAMIENTO DE LA VÍA ADMINISTRATIVA.- Finalmente, se advierte que el sindicato accionante no hizo manifestación alguna respecto de la defensa previa de falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa, en su memorial que rola a folios 504 a 511. No obstante lo anterior, se considera que es un asunto que puede ser conocido al momento de realizarse la audiencia única propia de este tipo de procesos; motivo por el cual, se reserva su conocimiento para tal momento procesal.

V.- DE LA SUSPENSIÓN DEL PROCESO CON OCASIÓN DE LA ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD.- Finalmente, resulta de importancia para la tramitación de este asunto, que mediante nota enviada por la Sala Constitucional mediante fax el pasado diecinueve de octubre (visible a folios 525 a 528), se puso en conocimiento de este Tribunal que por resolución de las quince horas treinta y siete minutos del diecisiete de octubre último se le dio curso a la acción de inconstitucionalidad que interpuso el sindicato aquí actor contra la inconstitucionalidad por omisión de los artículos 2 incisos 2) y 3) y 5 inciso 4) de la Ley General de Concesión de Obra Pública con Servicio Público, número 7762 y por conexión el Contrato de concesión de obra pública con servicio público para el diseño, financiamiento, construcción, operación y mantenimiento de la terminal de contenedores de Moín; la cual se tramita en expediente número 12-009578-0007-CO. Asimismo, tiene conocimiento este Tribunal que, los edictos respectivos fueron publicados en el Boletín Judicial en los números 216, 217 y 218, los días ocho, nueve y doce de noviembre del dos mil doce. Al respecto, el numeral 81 de La Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional dispone en lo que interesa:

“Artículo 81.- Si el Presidente considerare cumplidos los requisitos de que se ha hecho mérito, conferirá audiencia a la Procuraduría General de la República y a la contraparte que figure en el asunto principal, por un plazo de quince días, a fin de que manifiesten lo que estimen conveniente. Al mismo tiempo dispondrá enviar nota al tribunal u órgano que conozca del asunto, para que no dicte la resolución final antes de que la Sala se haya pronunciado sobre la acción, y ordenará que se publique un aviso en el Boletín Judicial, por tres veces consecutivas, haciendo saber a los tribunales y a los órganos que agotan la vía administrativa que esa demanda ha sido establecida, a efecto de que en los procesos o procedimientos en que se discuta la aplicación de la ley, decreto, disposición, acuerdo o resolución, tampoco se dicte resolución final mientras la Sala no haya hecho el pronunciamiento del caso." Consecuentemente, al figurar como asunto previo de ese expediente este proceso contencioso y resultar de directa aplicación para este caso lo que en finalmente decida el Alto Tribunal Constitucional, procede ordenar la suspensión del trámite de este proceso, para que las fases que hacen falta -de conciliación, audiencia única y dictado de la sentencia- se realicen una vez que sea resuelta la acción de inconstitucionalidad que en expediente No. 12-009578-0007-CO y debidamente notificado a este Despacho el fallo correspondiente; lo anterior, con base en lo dispuesto en los artículos 75, 81 párrafo segundo y 82 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y canon 82, inciso 4), del Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y Civil de Hacienda.

POR TANTO:

Se rechazan las defensas previas de incompetencia en lo atinente a la inconstitucionalidad por omisión del artículo 2 de la Ley 7762 y litis pendencia. Se reserva la resolución de la defensa previa de falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa para el momento en que se realice la audiencia única. Se suspende el trámite de este proceso, hasta tanto sea resuelta resuelta la acción de inconstitucionalidad que se tramita bajo el expediente número 12-009578-0007-CO ante la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y se ponga en conocimiento de esta esta Autoridad de manera íntegra, la sentencia que dicte el Alto Tribunal Constitucional en ese asunto.

Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Christian Hess Araya Felipe Córdoba Ramírez Proceso Contencioso Administrativo con trámite preferente. Defensas previas.

Sindicato de Trabajadores de Nombre415 y Afines Portuarios (SINTRAJAP) contra el Estado, Contraloría General de la República, Japdeva, Consejo Nacional de Concesiones, APM Terminals Central América B.V y APM Terminals Moín Sociedad Anónima