Obligation to pay municipal fees for maintenance of roads, parks, and green areasObligación de pago de tasas municipales por servicios de mantenimiento de vías, parques y zonas verdes

Asunto: Non-hierarchical control Recurrente: Communion with the forms of nature S.A.

Recurrido: Municipalidad de Osa No. 40-2020 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Sección Tercera, Anexo A del II Circuito Judicial de San José. Goicoechea, at nine hours twenty minutes on the thirty-first of January of two thousand twenty.- This Tribunal hears, in its capacity as non-hierarchical controller of legality, the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by Communion with the forms of nature S.A., legal identification number 3-101-654446, represented by its general agent, Mr. Jean Marc Levesque, residency identification number 112400008332, against resolution REC-APELACIÓN-0415-2018 of 13:25 hours on August 30, 2018, issued by the Municipalidad de Osa Mayor's Office.

Judge Leiva Poveda writes.

Considerando

I.- Proven facts: For a proper handling of this matter, from the documentation contained in the electronic file, the following is deemed proven: 1) By means of resolution REC-APELACIÓN-0415-2018 of 13:25 hours on August 30, 2018, the Municipal Mayor's Office declared without merit the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed against official communication SAV-MUNOSA-31-2018, internal consecutive number 646, issued by the Department of Communal Services, which responded to the request for elimination of the charge for services of maintenance of roads and public sites and of parks and green areas in the district of Ciudad Cortés, with the local authorities resolving that the corporation is obligated to pay the respective fees (tasas). 2) In a brief filed before the municipal corporation, the appellant filed an appeal (recurso de apelación) against the cited resolution.

II.- On the specific case: In summary, Mr. Lavesque objects that he filed a single appeal on behalf of 412 corporations, but considers that the municipality resolved in bad faith and illegally in a separate manner, only with respect to 14 corporations. The appellant does not indicate what the defect of illegality is that arises from the manner in which the Municipality resolved, nor the reasons why he believes what occurred violates good faith. In any case, since each corporation is a distinct legal entity, this Chamber finds no reasons why the individual response given by the local government to each one could affect the validity of the actions, and therefore this grievance is rejected. It goes without saying that in this venue, the individuality recognized by the municipal authority is maintained, with the issuance of independent acts for each user, as stated in the heading of this resolution, which far from generating any defenselessness, facilitates the understanding of the scope of what was resolved for each challenger. Regarding the merits of the matter, he claims that the Mayor interprets that the original request concerned the elimination of the cleaning services for roads, green areas, and parks, when the petition was actually aimed at suppressing the charge for them. From a comprehensive reading of the case file, it is clear that from the outset, the appellant corporation's action tended toward not being charged these fees (tasas), which was rejected by both the Department of Communal Services and the Mayor, who indicated that given its status as owner of a property within the canton, the corporation is obligated to make payment for the services provided, meaning the claim was clearly understood by said local authority and rejected. Therefore, this Chamber also disagrees with the grievance that objects to the local authority's lack of response and the lack of reasoning for the appealed act, which is extensive and explanatory regarding the reasons giving cause for the charging of the cited fees (tasas). The appellant is of the position that it has the right to request that the amounts of those indicated fees (tasas) not be charged, since the municipal service is not provided on its properties, which it seeks to demonstrate through notarial deeds (actas notariales) drawn up before Notary Public José Alberto Campos Arias. From the reading of the first document, the following, among other details, is clear: "the Municipality has sent crews of laborers, starting May 5, two thousand seventeen, to clear the road shoulders (chapear las rondas de las calles), and I verify that those laborers have cleared and are clearing only the shoulders of those roads, leaving the vegetative residue in some of the ditches (cunetas) that exist on those roads, or directly on them, in addition they also recently cut small bushes and left them in the ditches (cunetas). As the rainy season has started, I also verify that the clearing work (chapea) has been done hastily, that is, superficially and since the vegetative debris, product of the clearing (chapea), is not collected, problems in stormwater drainage are noticeable …". The second document indicates that on certain roads, road cleaning work is not performed, there are no parks, curbs, or gutters (caños), so the service is not provided. The first cited document shows that municipal work does exist in the area, clearing services (chapea) that support the charge of the respective fees (tasas). Now then, if the users are dissatisfied with the deficiency of the service, the claim filed is not the one that solves their disagreement, since it is not possible to exempt them from the payment of the fee (tasa). Other legal avenues exist through which they can demand the optimization of the resources collected through these fees (tasas) in order to obtain quality service provision from the municipal corporation, with this avenue being useless for such purposes, because the action has always tended to obtain an exemption that would be illegal. In this regard, this Tribunal has repeatedly indicated, concerning the provision of garbage collection services, street and gutter (caños) cleaning, maintenance of parks and green areas, that: "This class of local services is regulated in two normative bodies, namely, the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, article 4, and the Código Municipal, in numeral 74. From both norms it is clear that said services are charged through fees (tasas), which are taxes whose purpose is intended for the maintenance and continuity of the same service. The third paragraph of article 4 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios provides the following: 'A fee (tasa) is the tax whose obligation has as its generating event the effective or potential provision of a public service individualized to the taxpayer; and whose proceeds must not have a destination unrelated to the service that constitutes the reason for the obligation. The consideration received from the user in payment for services not inherent to the State is not a fee (tasa).' Under that same understanding, the Código Municipal provides the following: 'Artículo 74. — For the services it provides, the municipality will charge fees (tasas) and prices that will be set taking into consideration their cost plus ten percent (10%) profit for their development. Once set, they will enter into force thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta. / Users must pay for public lighting services, cleaning of public roads, separate collection, transportation, valorization, treatment, and proper final disposal of ordinary waste, maintenance of parks and green areas, municipal police service, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, insofar as they are provided, even if they show no interest in such services. (...) In addition, fees (tasas) will be charged for the services and maintenance of parks, green areas, and their respective services. The amounts will be set taking into consideration the effective cost of what was invested by the municipality to maintain each of the urban services. Said amount will be increased by ten percent (10%) profit for its development; such sum will be charged proportionally among the taxpayers of the district, according to the property value. The municipality will calculate each fee (tasa) annually and will charge it in quarterly installments on the outstanding balance. The municipality is authorized to issue the corresponding regulation, which governs how to proceed to organize and charge each fee (tasa).' The comprehensive reading of the cited articles is relevant, as the elements of importance necessary to resolve this case can be deduced from it. Firstly, it must be indicated that everything concerning the charging and management of local services is regulated by the tax system, such that the liable subject is defined in the second paragraph of article 74 of the Código Municipal, which provides that it is the 'user' who assumes the obligation. The payment of the fees (tasas) responds to the existence of state services essential for private and societal life, and therefore they are constituted as ex lege obligations, of Public Law, they are coercively imposed levies, that is, they do not have their cause in a contract, so they do not arise from the conjunction of the will of the parties, and are legally structured through the charging of an amount that covers the economic cost plus a percentage for their development (article 74, first paragraph of the Código Municipal). Their origin comes from the law and, as such, it is an obligation inherent to the State —in this case, to the local government— and, correlatively, for the user, to honor their obligation with due payment. Both the active subject and the liable subject hold obligations under the law that, by their nature, are inalienable, insofar as the services are essential or indispensable." (The underlining is not from the original) (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera, vote 573-2015 of fourteen hours on November thirty, two thousand fifteen). In light of the foregoing, it is important to highlight that the payment of the fees (tasas) responds to the existence of state services essential for private and societal life and, consequently, are coercively imposed, so that when the State organizes a service and makes it available to the citizen, the latter, even if they have no interest in it nor make use of it, cannot refuse to pay it, because what is intended when establishing it is serving the general interest. Based on this assertion, two aspects of vital importance in the present analysis must be highlighted: on the one hand, having clearly identified that the generating event for the fees (tasas) corresponds to the effective or potential provision of a public service by the Municipality, and on the other hand, that the liable subject is the 'user' who receives the effective or potential provision thereof, just as this Tribunal has repeatedly indicated. Now, in a systematic application of articles 83 and 84 of the Código Municipal, Law 7797, in relation to articles 64 of the Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos, Law 7527 and 6 of the Ley de Impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, Law 7509, it must be specified that the determination of the user, for the purposes of charging said fees (tasas), is given by the possession of the real property —on this aspect it must be taken into consideration that the cited article 83 expressly provides that the amount to be charged for the fee (tasa) is defined by virtue of the property value, hence it is expressly delimited that said action is exercised over this type of property—. Thus, the user of the public services is the person who exercises the right of possession of a specific real property —insofar as they would be directly, effectively, or potentially receiving the service— and, only by way of exception, when it is not possible to identify them, the charge of the fee (tasa) would fall on the holder of the bare ownership right of the real property, since the service must be understood as supplied to the latter, always remembering that the repeatedly cited article 83 provides that what is regulated is the availability of the service provision, but not the interest or use that the user decides to make of it. From the foregoing, it can be affirmed that the establishment of the fees (tasas) responds to a principle of cantonal solidarity for public burdens, where there is an obligation for all users to contribute financially to their financing, in accordance with the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. The foregoing implies that the service must be provided to meet the needs of the canton, consequently, its determination and charge falls upon the entire community and, although it can be individualized for purposes of provision and charge, it cannot be ignored that it responds to a service of local public interest inherent to the municipal corporations, over which, there is a duty to contribute even if no interest in them is shown. In this sense, what is essential is that it is provided in the community, at least in the sectors where it must or can be, such that the contribution of all residents is required to cover the effective cost of what was invested by the municipality in its provision, and which must be distributed among the users of the respective canton, in compliance with the provisions of the final paragraph of article 74 of the Código Municipal, regarding that the determination of the amounts for fees (tasas) for the services and maintenance of parks, green areas, and their respective services, must be obtained proportionally among the taxpayers of the district, according to the property value. It must be kept in mind that article 4 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios recognizes that the fee (tasa) is the tax whose obligation has as its generating event the effective or potential provision of a public service, which demonstrates that the requirement falls on the provision of the service to the community as such, and not to specific cases or subjects. Pursuant to the foregoing, the applicability of the payment of the tax operates even under the hypothesis that the taxpayer is not interested in making use of them, such that it is enough that it is provided or maintained for the obligation to pay to exist. In this sense, note that the effective cost of what was invested by the municipality in said provision must be distributed among the users of the respective canton and, consequently, the collection amount of the fees (tasas) is proportional to the service provided —in its generality and not individuality—, hence if the municipal corporations extend the provision of services to a greater capacity than possible with their resources, the variation in costs will directly influence the determination of the amount of the fee (tasa) to be charged to each user. In any case, the local corporation, when hearing the challenges in its internal appellate phase (doctrinally called "Reduplicative Self-tutelage" or "Self-tutelage to the second power"), expressly states that said service is indeed provided in the canton of Osa, so that even if it does not cover the entire canton, it is imperative for the residents to honor said obligation. Thus, there is a duty for users to pay quarterly the amount corresponding to the fee (tasa) for services of maintenance of roads and public sites and of parks and green areas, since, it is reiterated, said taxes must be paid insofar as they respond to general public interests that fall on the entire canton and not on the individualization of the users who receive it. By virtue of the foregoing, the grievances set forth must be rejected, it being correct to confirm the challenged resolution and, lacking any further appeal, the administrative channel must be deemed exhausted.

III.- Having conducted this proceeding electronically, a complete copy containing both the administrative file submitted by the Municipal Corporation and the entirety of the documents comprising the present appeal is available to the parties, for which they must provide the electronic storage device (USB drive or compact disc). Likewise, in the event that physical or electronic documentation has been submitted (maps, photographs, reports, etc.) that remains in the custody of the Court, whoever submitted it may withdraw it within a period of 30 business days, in accordance with the provisions of article 12 of the Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

Por tanto

The appeal (recurso de apelación) is declared without merit, and therefore the appealed resolution is confirmed. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted.

Jorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Chaves Torres Rodolfo Mareco Ortiz Asunto: Non-hierarchical control Recurrente: Communion with the forms of nature S.A.

Recurrido: Municipalidad de Osa *43GT9DH9S5K861* The appellant does not indicate what error of illegality arises from the manner in which the Municipality resolved the matter, nor the reasons why it considers that what occurred violates good faith. In any case, given that each company is a distinct legal entity (persona jurídica), this Chamber finds no grounds on which the individual response given by the local government to each one could affect the validity of the proceedings, and this grievance is therefore dismissed. It goes without saying that in this venue the individuality recognized by the municipal authority is maintained, with the issuance of independent acts for each user, as recorded in the heading of this resolution, which, far from generating any defenselessness, facilitates understanding of the scope of what was decided for each appellant. As to the merits of the matter, it claims that the Mayor interprets that the original request concerned the elimination of street cleaning, green area, and park services, when in reality the petition was aimed at suppressing the charge for them. From a comprehensive reading of the case file, it is clear that from the outset, the appellant company's action tended toward not being charged these taxes, which was rejected both by the Communal Services Department (Departamento de Servicios Comunales) and by the Mayor, who indicated that given its status as the owner of a property within the canton, the company is obligated to pay for the services provided, so the claim was clearly understood and rejected by said local authority. Therefore, this Chamber also disagrees with the grievance objecting to the local authority's lack of response and the lack of reasoning in the appealed act, which is extensive and explanatory regarding the reasons motivating the charging of the cited taxes. The appellant is of the position that it has the right to request that it not be charged the amounts of those indicated taxes, since the municipal service is not provided on its properties, which it seeks to demonstrate through notarial acts executed before Notary Public José Alberto Campos Arias. From the reading of the first document, the following is evident, among other details: "the Municipality has sent crews of laborers, starting on May fifth, two thousand seventeen, to clear the roadsides (chapear las rondas), and I verify that those laborers have cleared and are clearing only the roadsides of those streets, leaving the plant residue in some of the ditches that exist on those streets, or directly on them; in addition, they also recently cut small bushes and left them in the ditches. As the rainy season has begun, I also verify that the clearing work has been done hastily, that is, superficially, and since the plant debris, product of the clearing, is not collected, problems are noted in the evacuation of stormwater...". In the second, it is indicated that on certain streets street cleaning work is not performed, there are no parks, curbs (cordón), or pipes (caños), so the service is not provided. The first cited document shows that municipal work does exist in the area, clearing services that support the charging of the respective taxes. Now, if the users are dissatisfied with the deficiency of the service, the claim filed is not the one that resolves their nonconformity, since they cannot be exempted from paying the tax. There are other legal channels through which they can demand the optimization of the resources collected through these taxes in order to obtain quality service provision from the municipal corporation, this channel being useless for such purposes, because the action has always tended to obtain an exoneration that would be illegal. On this particular point, this Court has repeatedly indicated, regarding the provision of garbage collection, street and pipe cleaning, and park and green area maintenance services, that: "This class of local services is regulated in two normative bodies, namely, the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), Article 4, and the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), in section 74. From both provisions, it follows that these services are charged through taxes (tasas), which are tributes whose purpose is destined for the maintenance and continuity of the same service. The third paragraph of Article 4 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures provides the following: 'A tax (tasa) is the tribute whose obligation has as its chargeable event (hecho generador) the effective or potential provision of a public service individualized to the taxpayer; and whose proceeds must not have a destination unrelated to the service that constitutes the reason for the obligation. The consideration received from the user in payment for services not inherent to the State is not a tax.' Under that same understanding, the Municipal Code provides the following: 'Article 74. — For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge taxes and prices that shall be set considering their cost plus ten percent (10%) profit for their development. Once set, they shall take effect thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta. / Users must pay for public lighting, public street cleaning, separate collection, transportation, valorization, treatment, and adequate final disposal of ordinary waste, park and green area maintenance, municipal police service, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, as long as they are provided, even if they do not demonstrate interest in such services. (...) In addition, taxes shall be charged for the services and maintenance of parks, green areas, and their respective services. The amounts shall be set considering the effective cost of what is invested by the municipality to maintain each of the urban services. Said amount shall be increased by ten percent (10%) profit for its development; such sum shall be charged proportionally among the taxpayers of the district, according to the value of the property. The municipality shall calculate each tax on an annual basis and shall charge it in quarterly installments on the accrued balance. The municipality is authorized to issue the corresponding regulation, which shall regulate how each tax shall be organized and charged.' The comprehensive reading of the cited articles is relevant, as the elements of relevance necessary to resolve this case can be inferred from it. In the first place, it must be indicated that everything concerning the charging and management of local services is regulated by the tax system, such that the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) is defined in Article 74, second paragraph of the Municipal Code, which provides that it is the 'user' who assumes the obligation. The payment of taxes responds to the existence of state services essential for private and social life, so they are constituted as ex lege obligations, of Public Law, are coercively imposed obligations, that is, they do not have their cause in a contract, therefore they do not arise from the conjunction of the will of the parties, and are legally structured through the charging of an amount that allows covering the economic cost plus a percentage for its development (Article 74, first paragraph of the Municipal Code). Their origin comes from the law and, as such, it is an inherent obligation of the State—in this case, of the local government—and, correlatively, of the user, to honor their obligation with due payment. Both the active subject and the taxable person hold legal obligations that, by their nature, are inalienable, insofar as the services are essential or indispensable." (The underlining is not from the original) (Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Third Section, vote 573-2015 at fourteen hours on November thirtieth, two thousand fifteen). In light of the foregoing, it is important to highlight that the payment of taxes responds to the existence of state services essential for private and social life and, consequently, are coercively imposed, so that when the State organizes a service and makes it available to the citizen, the latter, even if they have no interest in it or do not use it, cannot refuse to pay for it, because what is in mind upon its establishment is the attention of the general interest. From this statement, two aspects of vital importance in the present analysis must be highlighted: on the one hand, having clearly identified that the chargeable event of the taxes corresponds to the effective or potential provision of a public service by the Municipality, and on the other hand, that the taxable person is the 'user' who receives the effective or potential provision thereof, as this Court has so repeatedly indicated. Now, in a systematic application of Articles 83 and 84 of the Municipal Code, Law 7797, in relation to Articles 64 of the General Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos), Law 7527, and 6 of the Law on Real Estate Tax (Ley de Impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles), Law 7509, it must be specified that the determination of the user, for the purposes of charging said taxes, is given by the possession (posesión) of the real property (bien inmueble)—on this aspect, it must be considered that the cited Article 83 expressly provides that the amount to be charged as a tax is defined by virtue of the value of the property, hence it is expressly delimited that said action is exercised on this type of goods. Thus, the user of public services is the person who exercises the right of possession of a specific real property—insofar as they would be receiving, directly, effectively, or potentially, the service—and, only by way of exception, when it is not possible to identify them, the charge of the tax would fall on the holder of the right of bare ownership (nuda propiedad) of the real property, since the service must be understood as supplied to the latter, always remembering that the repeatedly cited Article 83 provides that what is regulated is the availability of the provision of the service and not the interest or use that the user may decide to make of it.

Based on the foregoing, it can be affirmed that the establishment of the fees responds to a principle of cantonal solidarity regarding public burdens, wherein all users have the obligation to contribute financially to their financing, in accordance with the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. The foregoing implies that the service must be provided to meet the needs of the canton; consequently, its determination and collection falls upon the entire community and, although it can be individualized for purposes of provision and collection, it cannot be overlooked that it responds to a local public interest service inherent to municipal corporations, for which there is a duty to contribute even if no interest in them is demonstrated. In this sense, what is essential is that it be provided in the community, at least in the sectors where it must or can be, such that the contribution of all citizens (munícipes) is required to cover the effective cost of what was invested by the municipality in its provision, and which must be distributed among the users of the respective canton, in compliance with the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 74 of the Código Municipal, stating that the determination of the amounts for fees for the services and maintenance of parks, green areas, and their respective services, must be obtained proportionally among the taxpayers of the district, according to the property value. It must be borne in mind that Article 4 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios recognizes that a fee is a tax whose obligation has as its generating event the effective or potential provision of a public service, which demonstrates that the requirement falls on the provision of the service to the community as such, and not on particular cases or subjects. In light of the above, the appropriateness of the payment of the tax operates even under the hypothesis that the taxpayer is not interested in making use of these, such that it is sufficient that it is provided or maintained for the obligation to pay it to exist. In this sense, it is observed that the effective cost of what was invested by the municipality in said provision must be distributed among the users of the respective canton and, consequently, the amount of the fee collection is proportional to the service provided—in its generality and not individuality—hence, if municipal corporations extend the provision of services to a capacity greater than what is possible with their resources, the variation in costs will directly influence the determination of the fee amount to be charged to each user. In any case, the local corporation, upon hearing the challenges in the internal appellate phase of the fee (doctrinally called "Reduplicative Self-Protection" or "Self-Protection to the Second Power"), expressly indicates that said service is indeed provided in the canton of Osa, so that even if it does not cover the entire canton, it is imperative for the citizens (munícipes) to honor said obligation. Thus, there is a duty for users to pay quarterly the amount corresponding to the fee for maintenance services of roads and public sites and of parks and green areas, since, it is reiterated, said taxes must be paid insofar as they respond to general public interests that fall upon the entire canton and not upon the individualization of the users who receive it. By virtue of the foregoing, the grievances set forth must be rejected, and the correct course is to confirm the challenged resolution and, lacking any further remedy, the administrative channel must be deemed exhausted.

**III.-** Having processed this venue electronically, a complete copy containing both the administrative file submitted by the Municipal Corporation as well as the entirety of the documents comprising this appeal is available to the parties, for which purpose they must provide the electronic storage device (USB drive or compact disc). Likewise, in the event that physical or electronic documentation (plans, photographs, reports, etc.) which remains in the custody of the Office was submitted, the party who submitted it may withdraw it within 30 working days, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

**Por tanto** The appeal filed is declared without merit, and therefore the appealed resolution is confirmed.

The administrative route is deemed exhausted.

&nbsp; &nbsp; **Jorge Leiva Poveda** **Francisco José Chaves Torres&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Rodolfo Mareco Ortiz** *Expediente: 18-011571-1027-CA.* *Asunto: Non-hierarchical control (Control no jerárquico)* *Recurrente: Communion with the forms of nature S.A.* *Recurrido: Municipalidad de Osa* &nbsp; <table style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 0pt; width: 100%;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; margin: 0pt; orphans: 0; widows: 0;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold;">&nbsp;</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top;"> <p style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 150%; margin: 0pt; orphans: 0; widows: 0;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial Unicode'; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">- Verification Code -</span><br /><span style="font-family: 'WASP 39 L'; font-size: 14pt; font-weight: normal;">*43GT9DH9S5K861*</span><br /><span style="font-family: 'Arial Unicode'; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: normal;">43GT9DH9S5K861</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <br /><br />&nbsp; <table style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 0pt; width: 100%;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; vertical-align: top; width: 400pt;"> <p style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%; margin: 0pt; orphans: 0; text-align: center; widows: 0;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial Unicode'; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">Document signed by:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: 'Arial Unicode'; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">JORGE LEIVA POVEDA, DECISION-MAKER JUDGE</span><br /><span style="font-family: 'Arial Unicode'; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">ELEUTERIO RODOLFO MARENCO ORTIZ, DECISION-MAKER JUDGE</span><br /><span style="font-family: 'Arial Unicode'; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal;">FRANCISCO CHAVES TORRES, DECISION-MAKER JUDGE</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> &nbsp; &nbsp; From the reading of the first document, the following is evident, among other details: "the Municipality has sent crews of laborers, starting from the fifth of May of two thousand seventeen, to clear the strips along the roadsides (chapear las rondas de las calles), and I verify that those laborers have cleared and are clearing only the strips along those roadsides, leaving the plant residue in some of the ditches that exist on those roads, or directly on the roads themselves, and they also recently cut small shrubs and left them in the ditches. As the rainy season began, I also verify that the clearing work has been done hastily, that is, superficially, and since the plant debris, a product of the clearing (chapea), is not collected, problems are noted in the evacuation of rainwater ...". In the second, it is indicated that on certain streets road cleaning work is not performed; there are no parks, curbs, or drains, so the service is not provided. The first document cited makes it evident that municipal work does exist in the area, clearing (chapea) services that support the charging of the respective fees. Now then, if the users are dissatisfied due to the deficiency of the service, the claim filed is not the one that resolves their disagreement, since it is not possible to exempt them from paying the fee. Other legal avenues exist through which they can demand the optimization of the resources collected through these fees in order to obtain the provision of quality services by the municipal corporation, this avenue being useless for such purposes, given that the action has always tended to obtain an exemption that would be illegal. On this particular point, this Court has repeatedly indicated, regarding the provision of garbage collection, street and drain (caños) cleaning, and maintenance of parks and green areas services, that: "This class of local services is regulated in two normative bodies, namely, the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, Article 4, and the Código Municipal, in numeral 74. From both norms it follows that these services are charged through fees (tasas), which are taxes whose purpose is destined for the maintenance and continuity of the same service. The third paragraph of Article 4 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios provides the following: 'A fee (tasa) is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event (hecho generador) the effective or potential provision of a public service individualized to the taxpayer; and whose proceeds must not have a destination other than the service that constitutes the reason for the obligation. The consideration received from the user in payment for services not inherent to the State is not a fee.' Under that same understanding, the Código Municipal provides the following: 'Article 74. — For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge fees (tasas) and prices that shall be fixed taking into consideration their cost plus a ten percent (10%) profit for developing them. Once fixed, they shall become effective thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta. / Users must pay for public lighting, public road cleaning, separate collection, transport, recovery, treatment and final adequate disposal of ordinary waste, maintenance of parks and green areas, municipal police service and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, insofar as they are provided, even if they demonstrate no interest in such services. (...) Additionally, fees (tasas) shall be charged for the services and maintenance of parks, green areas and their respective services. The amounts shall be fixed taking into consideration the effective cost of what is invested by the municipality to maintain each of the urban services. Said amount shall be increased by a ten percent (10%) profit for its development; such sum shall be charged proportionally among the taxpayers of the district, according to the property value. The municipality shall calculate each fee annually and shall charge it in quarterly installments on the overdue balance. The municipality is authorized to issue the corresponding regulation, which shall regulate the manner in which to proceed to organize and charge each fee.' The comprehensive reading of the cited articles is relevant, as the elements of relevance necessary to resolve this case can be derived from it. Firstly, it must be indicated that everything concerning the charging and management of local services is regulated by the tax system, such that the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) is defined in Article 74, second paragraph of the Código Municipal, which provides that it is the 'user' who assumes the obligation. The payment of fees (tasas) corresponds to the existence of state services essential for private and social life, therefore they are constituted as ex lege obligations, of Public Law, they are coercively imposed benefits, that is, they do not have their cause in a contract, so they do not arise from the conjunction of the will of the parties, and they are legally structured through the charging of an amount that allows covering the economic cost plus a percentage for its development (Article 74, first paragraph of the Código Municipal). Their origin comes from the law and, as such, it is an obligation inherent to the State - in this case, to the local government - and, correlatively, of the user, to honor their obligation with the due payment. Both the active subject and the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) hold legal obligations that, by their nature, are inalienable, insofar as the services are essential or indispensable". (The underlining is not from the original) (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera, voto 573-2015 of fourteen hours on the thirtieth of November of two thousand fifteen).

In light of the foregoing, it is important to emphasize that the payment of fees (tasas) corresponds to the existence of state services essential for private and societal life and, consequently, are coercively imposed, such that when the State organizes a service and makes it available to the citizen, the latter, even if he has no interest in it or makes no use of it, cannot refuse to pay it, because what is intended when establishing it is the attention of the general interest. Based on this assertion, two aspects of vital importance in the present analysis must be highlighted: on the one hand, having clearly identified that the taxable event (hecho generador) of the fees corresponds to the effective or potential provision of a public service by the Municipality, and on the other hand, that the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) is the "user" who receives the effective or potential provision thereof, as this Court has repeatedly indicated. Now, in a systematic application of Articles 83 and 84 of the Municipal Code, Law 7797, in relation to Articles 64 of the General Law on Urban and Suburban Leases, Law 7527, and 6 of the Law on Real Property Tax, Law 7509, it must be specified that the determination of the user, for purposes of charging said fees, is given by the possession (posesión) of the real property (bien inmueble) – on this aspect, it must be taken into consideration that cited Article 83 expressly provides that the amount to be charged as a fee is defined by virtue of the property’s value, hence it is expressly delimited that said action is exercised over this type of property. Thus, the user of public services is the person who exercises the right of possession of a determined real property – insofar as they would be receiving the service directly, effectively, or potentially – and, only by way of exception, when it is not possible to identify them, the charging of the fee would fall on the holder of the right of bare ownership (nuda propiedad) of the real property, since the service must be understood to be supplied to the latter, always recalling that the repeatedly cited Article 83 provides that what is regulated is the availability of the service provision and not the interest or use that the user decides to make of it. From the foregoing, it can be affirmed that the establishment of fees responds to a principle of cantonal solidarity of public burdens, where there is an obligation on all users to contribute economically to its financing, in accordance with the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. The foregoing implies that the service must be provided to meet the needs of the canton (cantón); consequently, its determination and charging falls upon the entire community, and although it may be individualized for purposes of provision and charging, it cannot be overlooked that it corresponds to a service of local public interest inherent to municipal corporations, upon which there is a duty to contribute even if no interest in the same is demonstrated. In this sense, what is essential is that it is provided in the community, at least in the sectors where it must or can be, such that the contribution of all participants (munícipes) is required to cover the effective cost of what was invested by the municipality in its provision, and which must be distributed among the users of the respective canton, in compliance with the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 74 of the Municipal Code, regarding that the determination of amounts for fees for services and the maintenance of parks, green areas, and their respective services must be obtained proportionally among the taxpayers of the district, according to the property’s value. It must be borne in mind that Article 4 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures recognizes that a fee is the tax (tributo) whose obligation has as its taxable event the effective or potential provision of a public service, which demonstrates that the requirement falls upon the provision of the service to the community as such, and not to specific cases or subjects. Pursuant to the foregoing, the appropriateness of the tax payment operates even under the hypothesis that the taxpayer is not interested in making use of these, such that it is sufficient that it is provided or maintained for an obligation to pay it to exist. In this regard, it is seen that the effective cost of what was invested by the municipality in said provision must be distributed among the users of the respective canton and, consequently, the amount collected from the fees is proportional to the service provided – in its generality and not individuality –, hence if municipal corporations extend the provision of services beyond what is possible given their resources, the variation in costs will directly influence the determination of the amount of the fee to be charged to each user. In any case, the local corporation, when hearing challenges in the internal appellate phase thereof (doctrinally called "Reduplicative Self-protection" or "Self-protection to the second power"), expressly indicates that said service is indeed provided in the canton of Osa, so that even when it does not cover the entirety of the canton, it is imperative for the participants (munícipes) to honor said obligation. Thus, there is a duty on users to pay quarterly the amount corresponding to the fee for maintenance services of roads and public spaces and of parks and green areas, since, it is reiterated, said taxes must be paid insofar as they respond to general public interests that fall upon the entire canton and not upon the individualization of the users who receive it.

By virtue of the foregoing, the grievances raised must be dismissed, and the correct course is to uphold the challenged resolution, and as there is no further recourse, the administrative process (vía administrativa) must be deemed exhausted." **Considering** **I.- Proven facts:** For a proper handling of this matter, from the documentation contained in the electronic case file (expediente), the following is deemed proven: **1)** Through resolution REC-APELACIÓN-0415-2018 of 13:25 hours of August 30, 2018, the Mayoral Office (Alcaldía Municipal) declared without merit the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed against official letter SAV-MUNOSA-31-2018, internal consecutive number 646, issued by the Department of Communal Services (Departamento de Servicios Comunales), by which a response was given to the request for elimination of the charges for road and public site maintenance services and for parks and green areas in the district of Ciudad Cortés, with the local authorities resolving that the company is obligated to pay the respective taxes (tasas). **2)** In a brief submitted to the municipal corporation, the appellant filed an appeal against the cited resolution.

**II.- Regarding the specific case**: In summary, Mr. Levesque objects that he raised a single appeal on behalf of 412 companies, but considers that the municipality resolved separately, in bad faith and illegally, only with respect to 14 companies. The appellant does not state what defect of illegality arises from the manner in which the Municipality resolved, nor the reasons why he considers that what occurred breaches good faith. In any event, given that each company is a distinct legal person (persona jurídica), this Chamber finds no reasons why the individual response given by the municipal government (ayuntamiento) to each one of them could affect the validity of the proceedings, thereby resulting in the dismissal of this grievance. It goes without saying that in this venue, the individuality recognized by the municipal authority is maintained, with the issuance of independent acts for each user, as recorded in the header of this resolution, which far from generating any defenselessness (indefensión), facilitates the understanding of the scope of what was decided for each challenger. As to the merits of the matter, he complains that the Mayor (Alcalde) interprets the original request as having been about the elimination of street cleaning, green area, and park services, when in reality the request was directed at removing the charge for these. From a comprehensive reading of the record (autos), it emerges that from the beginning, the appellant company's effort aimed at not being charged these taxes (tasas), which was rejected by both the Department of Communal Services and the Mayor, who indicated that given the condition of being the owner of a property within the canton (cantón), the company is obligated to make payment for the services provided, with which the claim was clearly understood and rejected by said local authority. For this reason, this Chamber also disagrees with the grievance that objects to the lack of a response from the local authority and the absence of reasoning in the appealed act, which is ample and explanatory regarding the reasons motivating the collection of the cited taxes (tasas). The appellant is of the position that she is entitled to request that the amounts of these indicated taxes (tasas) not be charged to her, given that on her properties the municipal service is not provided, which she intends to prove through notarial acts (actas notariales) recorded before Notario Público José Alberto Campos Arias. From the reading of the first document, among other details, the following emerges: "*the Municipality has sent crews of laborers, starting on May fifth, two thousand seventeen, to clear the roadsides of the streets, and I verify that these laborers have cleared and are clearing only the roadsides of those streets, leaving the plant residue in some of the ditches that exist on those streets, or directly on the streets themselves, and they also recently cut small bushes and left them in the ditches. As the rainy season has begun, I also verify that the clearing work has been done hastily, that is, superficially, and since the plant debris, product of the clearing, is not collected, problems in the evacuation of rainwater are noticeable ...*". The second document indicates that on certain streets, street cleaning work is not performed, there are no parks, curbs, or pipes (caños), so the service is not provided. The first document cited shows that municipal work does exist in the area, clearing services that support the collection of the respective taxes (tasas). Now, if the users are dissatisfied with the deficiency of the service, the claim raised is not the one that resolves their disagreement, for they cannot be exempted from paying the tax (tasa). There are other legal avenues by which optimization of the resources collected through these taxes (tasas) can be demanded in order to obtain quality service provision from the municipal corporation, this avenue being useless for such purposes, given that the effort has always been aimed at obtaining an exoneration (exoneración) that would be illegal. On this particular point, this Court has on repeated occasions indicated, with regard to the provision of garbage collection, street and pipe (caños) cleaning, and park and green area maintenance services, that: "*This class of local services is regulated in two normative bodies, namely, the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), article 4, and the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), in section 74. From both norms, it follows that said services are charged through taxes (tasas), which are tributes whose purpose is intended for the maintenance and continuity of the service itself. The third paragraph of article 4 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures provides as follows: 'A tax (tasa) is the tribute whose obligation has as its triggering event (hecho generador) the effective or potential provision of an individualized public service to the taxpayer; and whose proceeds must not be destined for a purpose unrelated to the service that constitutes the reason for the obligation.* The consideration received from the user in payment for services not inherent to the State is not a rate." Under that same reasoning, the Municipal Code provides as follows: "Article 74. — For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge rates and prices that shall be set taking into consideration their cost plus a ten percent (10%) profit for their development. Once set, they shall take effect thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta. / Users must pay for public lighting services, street sweeping, separate collection, transportation, recovery, treatment, and adequate final disposal of ordinary waste, maintenance of parks and green areas, municipal police service, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, as long as they are provided, even if they show no interest in such services. (...) In addition, rates shall be charged for the services and maintenance of parks, green areas, and their respective services. The amounts shall be set taking into consideration the effective cost of what the municipality has invested to maintain each of the urban services. Said amount shall be increased by ten percent (10%) profit for its development; such sum shall be charged proportionally among the taxpayers of the district, according to the property value. The municipality shall calculate each rate on an annual basis and shall charge them in quarterly installments on the outstanding balance. The municipality is authorized to issue the corresponding regulation, governing the manner in which each rate shall be organized and charged." A comprehensive reading of the cited articles is relevant, since from it one can discern the elements of relevance necessary to resolve this case. In the first place, it must be noted that everything concerning the charging and management of local services is regulated by the tax system, such that the passive subject is defined in the second paragraph of Article 74 of the Municipal Code, which provides that it is the "user" who assumes the obligation. The payment of rates responds to the existence of state services essential for private and social life, and therefore they are constituted as ex lege obligations, of Public Law, they are coercively imposed charges, that is, they do not have their cause in a contract, so they do not arise from the conjunction of the wills of the parties, and they are legally structured through the charging of an amount that allows covering the economic cost plus a percentage for its development (Article 74, first paragraph of the Municipal Code). Their origin comes from the law and, as such, it is an obligation inherent to the State —in this case, to the local government— and, correlatively, to the user, to honor their obligation with due payment. Both the active subject and the passive subject hold legal obligations that, by their nature, are inalienable, as long as the services are essential or indispensable". (The underlining is not from the original) (Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Third Section, Voto 573-2015 of fourteen hours of November thirtieth, two thousand fifteen). In light of the foregoing, it is important to highlight that the payment of rates responds to the existence of state services essential for private and social life and, consequently, are coercively imposed, so that when the State organizes a service and makes it available to the citizen, even if the latter has no interest in or makes use of it, they cannot refuse to pay for it, because what is aimed at when it is established is the attention of the general interest. Based on this assertion, two aspects of vital importance in the present analysis must be highlighted: on the one hand, clearly identifying that the taxable event for rates corresponds to the effective or potential provision of a public service by the Municipality, and on the other hand, that the passive subject is the "user" who receives the effective or potential provision thereof, just as this Tribunal has repeatedly indicated. Now then, in a systematic application of Articles 83 and 84 of the Municipal Code, Law 7797, in relation to Articles 64 of the General Law of Urban and Suburban Leases, Law 7527 and 6 of the Law on Tax on Immovable Property, Law 7509, it must be specified that the determination of the user, for purposes of charging said rates, is given by the possession of the immovable property —on this aspect, it must be taken into consideration that the cited Article 83 expressly provides that the amount to be charged as a rate is defined by virtue of the property value, hence it is expressly delimited that said action is exercised on this type of property—. Thus, the user of public services is the person exercising the right of possession of a specific immovable property —insofar as they would be receiving the service directly, effectively or potentially— and, solely by way of exception, when it is not possible to identify them, the charging of the rate would fall upon the holder of the bare ownership right of the immovable property, since the service must be understood as supplied to them, always remembering that Article 83 repeatedly cited provides that what is regulated is the availability of the service provision and not the interest or use that the user decides to make of it. From the foregoing, it can be affirmed that the establishment of rates responds to a principle of cantonal solidarity of public burdens, where there is an obligation for all users to contribute economically to their financing, in accordance with the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. The foregoing implies that the service must be provided to meet the needs of the canton, consequently, its determination and charging falls upon the entire community and, although it may be individualized for purposes of provision and charging, it cannot be ignored that it responds to a local public interest service inherent to municipal corporations, upon which there is a duty to contribute even if no interest in them is demonstrated. In this sense, what is essential is that it is provided in the community, at least in the sectors where it must or can be, such that the contribution of all the citizens is required to cover the effective cost of what the municipality has invested in its provision, and which must be distributed among the users of the respective canton, in compliance with the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 74 of the Municipal Code, concerning that the determination of the amounts for rates for the services and maintenance of parks, green areas, and their respective services, must be obtained proportionally among the taxpayers of the district, according to the property value. It must be borne in mind that Article 4 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures recognizes that the rate is the tribute whose obligation has as its taxable event the effective or potential provision of a public service, which demonstrates that the requirement falls upon the provision of the service to the community as such, and not to particular cases or subjects. In view of the foregoing, the appropriateness of the payment of the tribute operates even under the hypothesis that the taxpayer is not interested in making use of them, in any case, it suffices that it is provided or maintained for an obligation to pay it to exist. In this sense, note that the effective cost of what the municipality has invested in said provision must be distributed among the users of the respective canton and, consequently, the amount collected from the rates is proportional to the service provided —in its generality and not individuality—, hence if the municipal corporations extend the provision of services to a greater capacity than is possible with their resources, the variation in costs will directly influence the determination of the rate amount to be charged to each user. In any event, the local corporation, when hearing challenges in the internal appellate phase thereof (doctrinally called "Reduplicative Self-Protection" or "Self-Protection to the second power"), expressly points out that said service is indeed provided in the canton of Osa, so that even though it may not cover the entirety of the canton, it is imperative for the citizens to honor said obligation. Thus, there is a duty for users to pay quarterly the amount corresponding to the rate for road and public site maintenance services and for parks and green areas, insofar as, it is reiterated, said tributes must be paid as they respond to general public interests that fall upon the entire canton and not upon the individualization of the users who receive it.

By virtue of the foregoing, the grievances raised must be rejected, and it is correct to confirm the contested resolution and, lacking any further recourse, the administrative process (vía administrativa) shall be deemed exhausted.

III.- As this proceeding has been conducted electronically, a complete copy containing both the administrative record (expediente administrativo) sent by the Municipal Corporation and all of the documents that make up this appeal is available to the parties, for which they must provide the electronic storage device (USB drive or compact disc). Likewise, in the event that physical or electronic documentation (plans, photographs, reports, etc.) remains in the custody of the Office, the party who submitted it may withdraw it within a period of 30 business days, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

Por tanto

The appeal (recurso de apelación) filed is declared without merit, and the appealed resolution is therefore confirmed. The administrative process (vía administrativa) is deemed exhausted.

Jorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Chaves Torres Rodolfo Mareco Ortiz Asunto: Control no jerárquico Recurrente: Communion with the forms of nature S.A.

Recurrido: Municipalidad de Osa

Asunto: Control no jerárquico Recurrente: Communion with the forms of nature S.A.

Recurrido: Municipalidad de Osa No. 40-2020 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Sección Tercera, Anexo A del II Circuito Judicial de San José. Goicoechea, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del treinta y uno de enero del dos mil veinte.- Conoce este Tribunal en condición de contralor no jerárquico de legalidad, del recurso de apelación presentado por Communion with the forms of nature S.A., cédula jurídica 3-101-654446, representada por su apoderado general, el señor Jean Marc Levesque, cédula de residencia 112400008332, en contra de la resolución REC-APELACIÓN-0415-2018 de las 13:25 horas del 30 de agosto del 2018, emitida por parte de la Alcaldía Municipal de Osa.

Redacta el juez Leiva Poveda.

Considerando

I.- Hechos probados: Para una correcta atención del presente asunto, de la documentación constante en el expediente electrónico, se tiene por demostrado lo siguiente: 1) Mediante resolución REC-APELACIÓN-0415-2018 de las 13:25 horas del 30 de agosto del 2018, la Alcaldía Municipal declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto contra el oficio SAV-MUNOSA-31-2018, consecutivo interno 646, emitida por el Departamento de Servicios Comunales, mediante el cual se dio respuesta a la solicitud de eliminación del cobro de los servicios de mantenimiento de vías y sitios públicos y de parques y zonas verdes en el distrito de Ciudad Cortés, resolviendo las autoridades locales que la sociedad está en obligación de cancelar las tasas respectivas. 2) En escrito presentado ante la corporación municipal, la parte recurrente interpuso recurso de apelación contra la resolución citada.

II.- Del caso concreto: En resumen, el señor Lavesque objeta que planteó un mismo recurso en representación de 412 sociedades, mas considera que la municipalidad resolvió de mala fe y de forma ilegal de manera separada, únicamente respecto de 14 sociedades. El apelante no indica cuál es el vicio de ilegalidad que desprende de la forma en que resolvió la Municipalidad, ni las razones por las cuales estima que lo ocurrido transgrede la buena fe. En todo caso, siendo que cada sociedad es una persona jurídica distinta, no encuentra esta Cámara motivos por los cuales la respuesta individual que diera el ayuntamiento a cada una de ellas pueda afectar la validez de las actuaciones, resultando por ello de rechazo este agravio. Por demás está indicar que en esta sede se mantiene la individualidad reconocida por la autoridad municipal, con la emisión de actos independientes para cada usuario, tal y como se consigna en el encabezado de la presente resolución, lo cual lejos de generar alguna indefensión, facilita la comprensión de los alcances sobre lo resuelto para cada impugnante. En cuanto al fondo del asunto, reclama que el Alcalde interpreta que la solicitud original versó sobre la eliminación de los servicios de limpieza de vías, zonas verdes y parques, cuando en realidad la petición iba dirigida a suprimir el cobro de éstos. De la lectura integral de los autos se desprende que desde un inicio, la gestión de la sociedad apelante tendió a que no se le cobraran estas tasas, la cual fue rechazada tanto por el el Departamento de Servicios Comunales como por el Alcalde, quienes indicaron que dada la condición de propietaria de una finca dentro del cantón, la sociedad se encuentra en la obligación de efectuar el pago de los servicios brindados, con lo que la pretensión fue claramente comprendida por dicha autoridad local y rechazada. Por ello tampoco concuerda esta Cámara con el agravio que objeta la falta de respuesta de la autoridad local y con la ausencia de fundamentación del acto apelado, el cual es amplio y explicativo respecto de las razones que dan motivo al cobro de las tasas de cita. La apelante es de la posición que tiene derecho a pedir que no se le cobren los importes de esas tasas indicadas, pues en las fincas de su propiedad no se presta el servicio municipal, lo cual pretende demostrar mediante actas notariales levantadas ante el Notario Público José Alberto Campos Arias. De la lectura del primer documento se desprende, entre otros detalles, lo siguiente: "la Municipalidad ha mandado cuadrillas de peones, a partir del cinco de mayo del dos mil diecisiete, para chapear las rondas de las calles, y verifico que esos peones han chapeado y están chapeando únicamente las rondas de esas calles, dejando el residuo vegetal en algunas de las cunetas que existen en esas calles, o directamente en las mismas, además también cortaron recientemente arbustos pequeños y los dejaron en las cunetas. Como la temporada lluviosa empezó, verifico también que el trabajo de chapea, se ha hecho a la carrera, o sea, en forma superficial y como no se recolecta el escombro vegetal, producto de la chapea, se notan problemas en la evacuación de las aguas pluviales ...". En el segundo se indica que en ciertas calles no se realiza trabajos de limpiezas de vías, no hay parques, cordón ni caños, por lo que el servicio no se presta. El primer documento de cita evidencia que sí existen trabajos municipales en la zona, servicios de chapea que sustentan el cobro de las tasas respectivas. Ahora bien, si los usuarios están descontentos por la deficiencia del servicio, el reclamo planteado no es el que soluciona su inconformidad, pues del pago de la tasa no le es posible eximírsele. Existen otras vías legales mediante las cuales puede exigir la optimización de los recursos recaudados mediante estas tasas a efecto de obtener una prestación de servicios de calidad por parte de la corporación municipal, resultando esta vía inútil para tales efectos, en razón de que la gestión ha tendido siempre a obtener una exoneración que resultaría ilegal. Sobre este particular, este Tribunal en reiteradas ocasiones ha señalado, en atención a la prestación de servicios de recolección de basura, limpieza de calles y caños, mantenimiento de parques y zonas verdes, que: "Esta clase de servicios locales se regula en dos cuerpos normativos, a saber, el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, artículo 4, y el Código Municipal, en el numeral 74. De ambas normas se desprende que dichos servicios se cobran mediante tasas, las cuales son tributos cuya finalidad está destinada al mantenimiento y continuidad del mismo servicio. Dispone el párrafo tercero del artículo 4 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios lo siguiente: "Tasa es el tributo cuya obligación tiene como hecho generador la prestación efectiva o potencial de un servicio público individualizado en el contribuyente; y cuyo producto no debe tener un destino ajeno al servicio que constituye la razón de ser de la obligación. No es tasa la contraprestación recibida del usuario en pago de servicios no inherentes al Estado." Bajo esa misma inteligencia, el Código Municipal dispone lo siguiente: “Artículo 74. — Por los servicios que preste, la municipalidad cobrará tasas y precios que se fijarán tomando en consideración su costo más un diez por ciento (10%) de utilidad para desarrollarlos. Una vez fijados, entrarán en vigencia treinta días después de su publicación en La Gaceta. / Los usuarios deberán pagar por los servicios de alumbrado público, limpieza de vías públicas, recolección separada, transporte, valorización, tratamiento y disposición final adecuada de los residuos ordinarios, mantenimiento de parques y zonas verdes, servicio de policía municipal y cualquier otro servicio municipal urbano o no urbano que se establezcan por ley, en el tanto se presten, aunque ellos no demuestren interés en tales servicios. (...) Además, se cobrarán tasas por los servicios y el mantenimiento de parques, zonas verdes y sus respectivos servicios. Los montos se fijarán tomando en consideración el costo efectivo de lo invertido por la municipalidad para mantener cada uno de los servicios urbanos. Dicho monto se incrementará en un diez por ciento (10%) de utilidad para su desarrollo; tal suma se cobrará proporcionalmente entre los contribuyentes del distrito, según el valor de la propiedad. La municipalidad calculará cada tasa en forma anual y las cobrará en tractos trimestrales sobre saldo vencido. La municipalidad queda autorizada para emanar el reglamento correspondiente, que norme en qué forma se procederá para organizar y cobrar cada tasa.” La lectura integral de los artículos de cita, es relevante, pues de ella se puede desprender los elementos de relevancia necesarios para resolver esta causa. En primer lugar, debe indicarse que todo lo concerniente al cobro y gestión de los servicios locales, se encuentra regulado por el ordenamiento tributario, de modo tal que el sujeto pasivo está definido en el artículo 74 párrafo segundo del Código Municipal, que dispone que es el "usuario" el que asume la obligación. El pago de las tasas responde a la existencia de servicios estatales imprescindibles para la vida privada y en sociedad, por lo que se constituyen como obligaciones ex lege, de Derecho Público, son prestaciones coactivamente impuestas, o sea, no tienen su causa en un contrato, por lo que no proviene de la conjunción de la voluntad de las partes, y se estructuran legalmente mediante el cobro de un importe que permite cubrir el costo económico más un porcentaje para su desarrollo (artículo 74, párrafo primero del Código Municipal). Su origen proviene de la ley y, como tal, es una obligación inherente al Estado -en este caso, al gobierno local- y, correlativamente, del usuario, honrar su obligación con el debido pago. Tanto sujeto activo como sujeto pasivo ostentan obligaciones de ley que, por su naturaleza, son irrenunciables, en el tanto los servicios son imprescindibles o indispensables". (El subrayado no es del original) (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera, voto 573-2015 de las catorce horas del treinta de noviembre del dos mil quince). En atención a lo expuesto, es importante resaltar que el pago de las tasas responde a la existencia de servicios estatales imprescindibles para la vida privada y en sociedad y, por consiguiente, son coactivamente impuestas, de modo que cuando el Estado organiza un servicio y lo pone a disposición del ciudadano, éste aunque no tenga interés ni haga uso de aquél, no puede negarse a pagarlo, debido a que lo que se tiene en mira al establecerse es la atención del interés general. A partir de esta afirmación, se deben resaltar dos aspectos de vital importancia en el presente análisis, por un lado, tener claramente identificado que el hecho generador de las tasas corresponde a la prestación efectiva o potencial de un servicio público por parte de la Municipalidad, y por otro lado, que el sujeto pasivo es el "usuario" que recibe la prestación efectiva o potencial del mismo, tal y como así lo ha señalado reiteradamente este Tribunal. Ahora bien, en una aplicación sistemática de los artículos 83 y 84 el Código Municipal, Ley 7797, en relación con los artículos 64 de la Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos, Ley 7527 y 6 de la Ley de Impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, Ley 7509, se debe precisar que la determinación del usuario, para efectos del cobro de dichas tasas, viene dada por la posesión del bien inmueble -sobre este aspecto debe tomarse en consideración que el artículo 83 citado expresamente dispone que el monto a cobrar por concepto de tasa se encuentra definido en virtud del valor de la propiedad, de allí que se delimite expresamente que dicha acción se ejerce sobre este tipo de bienes-. Así las cosas, el usuario de los servicios públicos, es la persona que ejerce el derecho de posesión de un determinado bien inmueble -en el tanto estaría recibiendo en forma directa, efectiva o potencialmente, el servicio- y, únicamente a modo de excepción, cuando no sea posible identificarla, el cobro de la tasa recaería sobre el el titular del derecho de la nuda propiedad del bien inmueble, por cuanto, el servicio deberá entenderse suministrado a este, siempre recordando que el artículo 83 de repetida cita dispone que lo regulado es la disponibilidad de la prestación del servicio mas no el interés o uso que el usuario decida realizar del mismo. A partir de lo anterior, se puede afirmar que el establecimiento de las tasas responde a un principio de solidaridad cantonal de las cargas públicas, en donde existe la obligación de todos los usuarios de contribuir económicamente a su financiamiento, de conformidad con las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias pertinentes. Lo anterior, implica que el servicio debe ser brindado para atender las necesidades del cantón, por consiguiente, su determinación y cobro recae sobre toda la colectividad y, aunque el mismo pueda individualizarse para efectos de prestación y cobro, no puede obviarse que responde a un servicio de interés público local inherente a las corporaciones municipales, sobre el cual, existe el deber de contribuir aunque no se demuestre interés en los mismos. En este sentido, lo indispensable es que el mismo se brinde en la comunidad, al menos en los sectores en donde se deba o pueda, de forma que se requiere del aporte de todos los munícipes para cubrir el costo efectivo de lo invertido por la municipalidad en su prestación, y que deberá ser distribuido entre los usuario del respectivo cantón, en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el párrafo final del artículo 74 del Código Municipal, respecto a que la determinación de los montos por concepto de tasas por los servicios y el mantenimiento de parques, zonas verdes y sus respectivos servicios, debe obtenerse proporcionalmente entre los contribuyentes del distrito, según el valor de la propiedad. Debe tenerse presente que el artículo 4 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios reconoce que la tasa es el tributo cuya obligación tiene como hecho generador la prestación efectiva o potencial de un servicio público, lo que demuestra que la exigencia recae sobre la prestación del servicio a la comunidad como tal, y no a casos o sujetos particulares. A tenor de lo expuesto, la procedencia del pago del tributo opera aún bajo la hipótesis que al contribuyente no le interese hacer uso de estos, de toda suerte que basta con que éste se preste o se mantenga para que exista obligación de pagarlo. En este sentido, véase que el costo efectivo de lo invertido por la municipalidad en dicha prestación debe ser distribuido entre los usuarios del respectivo cantón y, por consiguiente, el monto de la recaudación de las tasas es proporcional al servicio brindado -en su generalidad y no individualidad-, de allí que si, las corporaciones municipales extienden la prestación de los servicios a una mayor capacidad de lo posible en sus recursos, la variación de los costos influirá directamente en la determinación del monto de la tasa a cobrar a cada usuario. En todo caso, la corporación local, al conocer de las impugnaciones en la fase recursiva interna de ésta (doctrinalmente denominada “Autotutela Reduplicativa” o “Autotutela a la segunda potencia”), expresamente señala que dicho servicio sí se brinda en el cantón de Osa, de modo que aún y cuando no abarque la totalidad del cantón, es imperativo a los munícipes, honrar dicha obligación. Así las cosas, existe el deber de los usuarios de cancelar trimestralmente el monto correspondiente a la tasa por concepto de servicios de mantenimiento de vías y sitios públicos y de parques y zonas verdes, por cuanto, se reitera, dichos tributos deben ser cancelados en el tanto responden a intereses públicos generales que recaen sobre todo el cantón y no sobre la individualización de los usuarios que lo reciben. En virtud de lo anterior, los agravios expuestos deben ser rechazados, siendo lo correcto confirmar la resolución impugnada y, al carecer de ulterior recurso, deberá darse por agotada la vía administrativa.

III.- Al haberse sustanciado esta sede en forma electrónica, queda a disposición de las partes obtener una copia integral que contiene tanto el expediente administrativo remitido por la Corporación Municipal así como la totalidad de las piezas que conforman la presente alzada, para lo cual deberá aportar el dispositivo electrónico de almacenamiento (llave maya o disco compacto). Asimismo, en caso que hubiere ingresado documentación física o electrónica (planos, fotografías, informes, etc) que permanezca aún en custodia el Despacho, podrá retirarla quien la aportó en un plazo de 30 días hábiles, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 12 del Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión n.° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial n.° 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión n.° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.

Por tanto

Se declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto por lo que se confirma la resolución apelada. Se da por agotada la vía administrativa.

Jorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Chaves Torres Rodolfo Mareco Ortiz Asunto: Control no jerárquico Recurrente: Communion with the forms of nature S.A.

Recurrido: Municipalidad de Osa *43GT9DH9S5K861*