The Supreme Court denies to the concessionaire of the AP-53 highway that the Government must compensate it for the drop in income from the confinement

2023-08-03 16:15:01

Acega had appealed the decision of the Council of Ministers, which denied in June 2022 that the company was entitled to any consideration

03 ago 2023 . Updated at 4:15 p.m.

Acega, concessionaire of the Santiago-Dozn toll highway (AP-53), should not be compensated for him Governmentdue to the drop in income that it suffered during the confinement in the section that goes from the Galician capital to the place of Alto de Santo Domingo. Aslo confirmed thesupreme courtwhich dismissed the appeal filed by the company against the resolution of the Council of Ministers of June 14, 2022, the day on which it rejected several requests for economic rebalancing presented by various national toll highway concessionaires, including Acega.

According to the judgment of the high court, Galician Central Highway (Acega)claimed a concessional rebalancing for the loss of income during the period from March 13 to July 15, 2020, in full confinement due to the coronavirus pandemic. To do this, he affirmed that the situation had motivated a each very relevant of the traffic in the road, the only source of income for the company, which meant that the contract could not be executed under normal parameters and under the agreed conditions, causing a strong loss of income that it had to assume.

Acega challenges the ministerial decision clinging to what Article 25 of Royal Decree Law 26/2020 had not been applied, approved to alleviate the economic consequences of the covid, for which, he understood, he could receive compensation for said loss of income. This vision collided head-on with that of the State Attorney, who opposed the lawsuit, denying that the opening of the highway to traffic during the state of alarm would have caused him enormous economic losses. quite the opposite, claimed that the company covered its costs and also made profitsgiven that the gross operating margin was positive.

The lawyer also stressed that the right to equality is not violated either, since what could be discriminatory is that, as a consequence of covid-19, highway concessionaires fully ensure the expected benefit (as if, for them, there had not been the right to equality). covid-19 nor the special legislation that has been necessary to approve) while the other public contractors bear, in part, the consequences of covid-19 in the terms regulated by said special legislation. Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, which, in addition to dismissing Acega’s appeal, orders her to pay the costs of the process.

Filed in: Supreme Court Council of Ministers Covid-19 Infrastructures AP-53