Jurisdiction Over Cassation Concerning the Las Baulas Marine Park RegulationCompetencia para conocer casación sobre reglamento del Parque Marino Las Baulas

PJEDITOR Document Res. 000118-A-TC-2026 ADMINISTRATIVE-LITIGATION AND CIVIL TREASURY COURT OF CASSATION. San José, at thirteen hundred hours on 29 June 2026.

Proceedings on the merits brought by AMANDA TIERRA S.A. against the STATE, with the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) participating as a passive intervenor and the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) as an interested third party. Counsel for the claimant filed a cassation appeal against judgment number 108-2022-I, issued at 10:00 hours on 12 October 2022 by the Administrative-Litigation and Civil Treasury Court.

REASONS

I.By resolution issued at seven hours and thirty-five minutes on 20 March 2023, the Administrative-Litigation and Civil Treasury Court of Cassation was assigned to decide the appeal filed, under the following ruling: “In accordance with the provisions of Articles 92(6) of the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure (hereinafter CPCA), 94 bis(6) of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, and 51(7) of the Regulations on the Organization and Service of the Administrative-Litigation and Civil Treasury Jurisdiction, the Administrative-Litigation and Civil Treasury Court of Cassation shall hear and decide the extraordinary cassation appeal against a ruling that upholds the prior defense of expiry when that expiry is evident and manifest. In this proceeding, the special judicial attorney for the claimant company appeals ruling no. 108-2022-I, issued at 10:00 hours on 12 October 2022, which declared the claim inadmissible by upholding the prior defense of expiry, in accordance with Article 66.1.k of the CPCA. Accordingly, the case file shall be sent to the Administrative-Litigation Court of Cassation for the appropriate action.”

II.However, upon a thorough review of the proceedings, it is determined that the cassation appeal must be heard by the First Chamber, as explained below and as counsel for the claimant also points out. Article 62(6) of the CPCA assigns the Court of Cassation the task of deciding appeals filed against rulings that uphold the prior defense provided for in Article 66.1(k) of the CPCA. However, a systematic interpretation of the Code shows that this refers to cases in which the Court upholds the defenses set out in Article 66(g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of the CPCA before judgment is issued. On the other hand, Article 119 of the same body of law provides that, in its judgment, the Court “...shall rule on all claims and all matters permitted by this Code”; the following provision, Article 120, authorizes the Trial Court to declare a claim inadmissible in certain circumstances, such as when the matters in dispute are acts not subject to challenge or when a prior defense that prevents the claim from being upheld is applicable.

Accordingly, under these provisions, a judgment dismissing a claim by upholding the defense of expiry is distinct in nature from an order having the force of a judgment that ends the proceeding before or during the preliminary hearing. This cassation court clearly has jurisdiction to decide appeals against judgments; however, in such cases the applicable criteria for allocating jurisdiction are those set out in Articles 135 and 136 of the repeatedly cited body of law. This proceeding concerns the possible nullity of Decree No. 36.918 MINAET, entitled “Regulations for Public Use of Las Baulas de Guanacaste Marine National Park”; consequently, Article 135(1)(c) of the Code applies unequivocally. For the foregoing reasons, the case file shall be sent as soon as possible to the First Chamber of the Court for the appropriate action in law.

THEREFORE

The case file shall be sent to the First Chamber for the appropriate action.

JORGE LEIVA POVEDA - JUSTICE Telephone: (506) 2295-3658 or 2295-3659, email: sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr

Documento PJEDITOR Res. 000118-A-TC-2026 TRIBUNAL DE CASACIÓN DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. San José, a las trece horas del veintinueve de junio de dos mil veintiséis.

Proceso de conocimiento formulado por AMANDA TIERRA S.A. contra el ESTADO, interviene como coadyuvante pasivo, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo (ICT) y como tercero interesado el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC), la representación de la parte accionante formuló recurso de casación contra la sentencia número 108-2022-I de las 10:00 horas del 12 de octubre de 2022 del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda.

CONSIDERANDO

II.No obstante, de la revisión minuciosa de lo actuado, se determina que el recurso de casación debe ser conocido por la Sala Primera, como se explica de seguido y como también, lo hace ver la representación de la parte actora. El artículo 62 inciso 6) del CPCA, asigna al Tribunal de Casación la resolución de los recursos incoados contra los pronunciamientos que declaren con lugar la defensa previa prevista en el artículo 66.1 inciso k) del CPCA, sin embargo, de una interpretación sistemática del Código de rito, se desprende que se refieren a aquellos casos en los que el Tribunal declara con lugar las defensas contendidas en el numeral 66 incisos g), h), i), j) y k) del CPCA, previo al dictado de la sentencia. Por otra parte, el artículo 119 del mismo cuerpo normativo establece que, en sentencia se “…resolverá sobre todas las pretensiones y todos los extremos permitidos por este Código” y de seguido, el mandato 120 habilita al Tribunal de Juicio a declarar la inadmisibilidad de la demanda en ciertos supuestos, como lo es que se discutan actos no susceptibles de impugnación o bien, de ser procedente alguna defensa previa que impida el acogimiento de la demanda.

De manera que, conforme a estas normas, la naturaleza de una sentencia en la que se rechaza la demanda, en virtud del acogimiento de la defensa de caducidad, es diverso al auto con carácter de sentencia que pone fin al proceso antes o durante la celebración de la audiencia preliminar. Es claro que este órgano casacional tiene competencia para resolver recursos contra sentencias, sin embargo, en tales casos los criterios de distribución de competencias aplicables son los contenidos en los cánones 135 y 136 del cuerpo normativo de reiterada cita. En este proceso, se discute la eventual nulidad del Decreto No. 36.918 MINAET denominado Reglamento de Uso Público del Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas de Guanacaste y por ende, resulta inequívocamente aplicable el ordinal 135 inciso 1) subinciso c) del código de rito. Por lo expuesto, remítase a la mayor brevedad el expediente a la Sala Primera de la Corte, para lo que en derecho corresponda.

POR TANTO

Pase el expediente a la Sala Primera para lo que corresponda.

JORGE LEIVA POVEDA - MAGISTRADO/A