The conflict between the Government of Asturias and Spain’s Ministry of Transport has intensified after Asturias initiated a €1.1 million sanction against Aucalsa, the concessionaire of the AP-66, or Autopista del Huerna, for charging the full toll during extensive roadworks. The Ministry has formally opposed the sanction and joined the proceedings, arguing that the regional government’s action disregards national regulations on toll roads and the circumstances of the repairs.
The sanction, approved by the Asturian Council of Government, is based on claims that Aucalsa failed to properly inform users about disruptions and that maintaining the full €16.20 toll during the works constitutes an abusive practice. The basic projects include repairs following a landslide in November 2024 and tunnel renovations, with Aucalsa and the Ministry responsible for different sections. The Ministry says safety and urgent repairs justify temporary restrictions, and that users have been informed through traffic panels and official communications, including on the DGT website.
Transport officials also say impressive traffic delays have been rare and that Ministry-funded toll discounts of up to 60% have saved users more than €132 million. They cite Royal Decree 439/2023, which they say assigns the Ministry responsibility for claims arising from the works and makes the repairs mandatory under EU law. The Ministry’s intervention is also linked to concerns that, as the road’s owner, it could be liable for part of the fine.
Asturias continues to call for a full toll suspension during the works, arguing that more than half the route fails to meet normal standards. The regional government has repeatedly urged the Ministry to take control of the concession and address long-standing complaints. Reactions within the Asturian executive to the Ministry joining the case have varied: some officials have called the move routine, while others have questioned its timing and purpose.
The proceedings over the works-related sanction are separate from the wider dispute over the duration and legality of the AP-66 concession. Somos Asturies argues that the concession should have expired on 17 October 2021 and says it was extended until 2050. The party links the extension to a decision made during José María Aznar’s government and to the motorway’s privatization in 2004. It says the European Commission opened an infringement procedure concerning the concession. That EU process is part of the political and legal challenge to the extension; it is not, by itself, a final court ruling ordering toll collection to end.
On 18 October 2026, Somos Asturies held a symbolic protest at the La Magdalena toll plaza, marking five years since the date on which it says the concession should have ended. Covadonga Tomé, the party’s spokesperson and a regional deputy, said the European Commission had “already indicated the illegality of this extension.” She criticized both the Spanish Ministry and the regional administration for failing to secure an effective solution, and argued that the toll barriers could ultimately have to be removed if the dispute proceeds before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Tomé also urged drivers to keep their toll receipts, saying Aucalsa could eventually have to repay charges collected during the disputed period. That is the party’s position, not a repayment order: the claims cited in the campaign have not produced a final judicial determination requiring reimbursement. Somos Asturies has also said that reversing the concession would be feasible on technical, economic and legal grounds, while accusing the Ministry of disregarding Asturias and the regional mobility department of inaction.
The concession dispute has drawn responses from political parties, transport associations and civil groups. Opposition deputies accuse the central government of siding with Aucalsa over Asturian residents, while transport leaders have described the Ministry’s position as a provocation. The Asturian Federation of Entrepreneurs (FADE) and major transport associations have filed their own challenges before the Supreme Court.
Consumer groups have escalated the dispute over charges during the works. The Unión de Consumidores de Asturias has complained to the public prosecutor, alleging possible fraud by Aucalsa for charging the full toll. The Plataforma Ciudadana Peaje Huerna ¡No! has submitted further complaints to regional and national prosecutors, as well as the Transparency Council, seeking action on toll charges and alleged document concealment.
The European Commission’s infringement procedure, prompted by a complaint from former Podemos deputy Daniel Ripa, forms another strand of the challenge to the concession extension. In parallel, the Asturian government and business sector have appealed to the Supreme Court after the Ministry refused to review the extension. The toll’s continuation, the €1.1 million sanction and the allocation of responsibility for repairs have thus become connected but distinct elements of a broader administrative and judicial dispute.
Similar tensions between regional and central authorities over transport policy have surfaced elsewhere in Spain. In Ceuta, operational lapses and government responses drew public scrutiny and political backlash. For more on such disputes, see this analysis of government crisis management in Ceuta: how government handling of regional crises can fuel controversy.
The AP-66, a basic route linking Asturias and León, remains one of Spain’s most expensive toll roads. The outcome of the sanction proceedings could affect how tolls are handled during major infrastructure works and how responsibilities are divided between regional and national authorities. Separately, the concession challenge raises questions about the toll’s duration and compliance with European law, as well as the future of public control over the motorway.
