In this state, the obligation to fabricate excuses for the dealer fades away as the Alicante-Torrevieja-Cartagena motorway faced income reductions due to the declaration of alarm during the pandemic. The Supreme Court rejected Ausur’s appeal, ruling that the government’s decision to refuse compensation was lawful in response to the crisis.
The company, which owns pralesa and Strong Group and operates under the moniker El Pozo, claimed losses of up to 3,049,838 euros caused by covid containment measures that brought traffic to a standstill on the road during the alarm period. It sought an economic rebalancing of the concession and an extension of the concession period by 235 days, effectively allowing nearly eight extra months beyond the original term.
The possibility that the government itself could intervene was contemplated within Royal Decree Law 8/2020 of March 17 that year, which established a range of measures to soften the economic blow of the alarm. The law also set forth initiatives designed to assist civil service concessionaires.
Later, in July, the Executive Board clarified in another decree, Royal Decree-Law 26/2020, the conditions for obtaining compensation. For state highways, the negative gross operating margin during the alarm’s validity was a central factor. In Ausur’s case, the court noted a negative margin of 287,944 euros. Like many concessionaires, the government dismissed these claims. Aulesa, which only owns the León to Astorga highway, received a modest nine-day extension.
Torrevieja motorway bills rise 6.4% yet stay in the red
The Torrevieja highway owner pursued the matter, appealing to higher authorities and arguing that certain provisions of the second decree were unconstitutional. The owner contended that the measures discriminated against territorialized state highways and other concessions, disrupting the balance of the concession and undermining legal certainty by defining the criteria for potential retroactive compensation.
To support the challenge, a report was requested, arguing that the decree was unconstitutional. In a July decision, the court rejected all arguments and sided with the government. The ruling maintained that there is no discrimination in creating different compensation mechanisms for different public concessions. It also held that management of a highway is not equivalent to a standard transport concession and found no insecurity or unconstitutional prerequisites for the conditions to be applied. The appeal was dismissed and the concessionaire was ordered to cover costs.
Ausur’s appeal was filed in February 2021 after the government’s administrative silence on the compensation request, with a challenge to the alleged dismissal. It was not until June 2022 that the cabinet formally rejected the concessionaire’s request. The Supreme Court later offered the company a chance to broaden the scope of its claim, but the firm declined. The concessionaire did not comment on the newspaper’s report.
Failed sale
The Supreme Court’s denial of Ausur’s claims to extend the concession and secure damages from the alarm period came as owners Pralesa and Grupo Fuertes abandoned plans to sell the concessionaire. After last year’s process, a joint offer from Bestinver and DIF executives did not meet the company’s financial expectations, prompting a retreat and renewed exploration of alternatives.
Ausur stood out as one of the few next‑generation highways that survived bankruptcy and public intervention after the real estate collapse, which had earlier led the state to assume control of the Madrid radials and Alicante toll roads. The Torrevieja highway’s owner did manage to strike a refinancing agreement with a banking syndicate, allowing continued operations.