This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.

Freshfields Risk & Compliance

| 2 minute read

Another major hurdle cleared: DC District Court enforces intra-EU ICSID Awards in the US

As discussed in our previous update, in August 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) removed one obstacle to the enforcement of intra-EU ICSID awards in the US when it confirmed that US courts have jurisdiction to enforce intra-EU awards under the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). One year later, DC District Court judges have now also rejected Spain’s arguments on the merits against enforcing intra-EU ICSID awards in four different judgments.

These judgments were issued separately on 12, 13 and 14 August 2025 in the context of proceedings to enforce the intra-EU ICSID awards in: 

  • Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain (formerly RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Ltd v. Kingdom of Spain)
  • Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain (formerly Infrared Environmental Infrastructure GP Ltd v. Kingdom of Spain), 
  • Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L. et al. v. Kingdom of Spain, and
  • Cube Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L and others v Kingdom of Spain

These decisions mark a significant step for the prospects of intra-EU ICSID award enforcement in the United States and form an increasingly solid trend of decisions setting firm precedent for rejecting the intra-EU merits defenses raised by EU Member States.

Background

The landscape surrounding the enforcement of intra-EU awards is well-known. Since the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)’s judgments in Achmea and Komstroy, EU Member States have consistently resisted enforcement efforts of intra-EU awards, arguing that intra-EU investment arbitration is incompatible with EU law. 

In this context, Spain is fighting enforcement efforts by multiple award creditors in several US court proceedings. In the four cases at hand, the award creditors Blasket (which acquired the awards from the original claimants RREEF and Infrared Environmental), Infrastructure Services, and Cube Infrastructure had filed separately for the enforcement of intra-EU Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) ICSID awards in the amounts of €59.6 million, €28.2 million, €101 million, and €33.7 million, respectively. 

Jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception is settled

As discussed in a previous post, the DC Circuit clarified in last year’s NextEra decision that the existence of an arbitration agreement under the ECT is enough to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the FSIA, regardless of objections grounded in EU law. This decision is the subject of a pending petition for certiorari that Spain filed with the US Supreme Court. A decision on certiorari is expected in the coming months. 

Spain’s merits defenses are rejected

Having lost its jurisdictional arguments, Spain was left with its two substantive defenses:

  • Full faith and credit defense: Spain argued that the arbitral awards were not entitled to “full faith and credit” because the ICSID arbitrators had no jurisdiction to issue the awards in light of EU law as interpreted by the CJEU. The three judges rejected this argument, highlighting that US courts cannot review, much less second-guess, an ICSID tribunal’s finding on its jurisdiction or the merits of the dispute where those issues have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the arbitral forum.
  • Foreign sovereign compulsion/comity defense: Spain also argued that enforcing these awards would compel it to breach its obligations under EU law, invoking the so-called “foreign sovereign compulsion” doctrine and international comity. The three judges rejected this defense as well, finding that international comity in fact militates in favor of recognizing and enforcing the awards, thereby upholding the effect of decisions of foreign tribunals and fostering international cooperation.

Takeaway and outlook

These decisions represent an important step forward, not just for the claimants in the four proceedings, but also for other EU investors seeking to monetize arbitral awards against EU Member States in the US, at a moment when a number of similar enforcement actions are either on the horizon or already making their way through US courts. Stay tuned for the results of any appeals at the DC Circuit, as well as the outcome of Spain’s pending petition for certiorari in the NextEra case. If upheld, these developments will solidify the US as a reliable enforcement forum for intra-EU ICSID awards.

These decisions mark a significant step for the prospects of intra-EU ICSID award enforcement in the United States.

Tags

arbitration, disputes, europe, international arbitration, litigation, state aid, us