Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Cavalum SGPS, S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34

New

Available documents

27 Jul 2015
Request for Arbitration
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Request for Arbitration
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Kenneth R. Fleuriet, Reginald R. Smith, Amy Roebuck Frey, Kevin D. Mohr
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Cavalum SGPS S.A., King & Spalding, Spain
Document Summary
Request for Arbitration
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Request for Arbitration filed by Cavalum SGPS, S.A., a Portuguese corporate entity, against the Kingdom of Spain. The Claimant initiated the proceedings pursuant to Article 36 of the ICSID Convention and Article 26(4)(a)(i) of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), seeking the constitution of a three-member arbitral tribunal to adjudicate claims arising from Spain's regulatory overhaul of its renewable energy sector.

Factual and Legal Background

The dispute centers on a series of legislative and regulatory measures enacted by Spain that fundamentally altered the economic regime governing renewable energy investments. The Claimant alleges that it made substantial investments in seven photovoltaic power plants in Spain, relying on the stable feed-in tariffs and long-term economic guarantees established under Royal Decree 661/2007 and Royal Decree 1578/2008. According to the Request, Spain subsequently implemented a series of retroactive modifications, including Royal Decree 1565/2010 and Royal Decree-Law 14/2010, which capped eligible operating hours and reduced tariff durations. Furthermore, the Claimant asserts that Law 15/2012 imposed a 7% levy on electricity generation revenues, and Royal Decree-Law 9/2013 effectively abolished the original premium system, replacing it with a theoretical "reasonable rate of return" model based on standard facility parameters.

Claimant's Principal Legal Positions

The Claimant contends that Spain’s retroactive abrogation of the guaranteed incentive regimes constitutes a repudiation of its commitments, thereby violating multiple provisions of the ECT. Specifically, the Claimant argues that Spain breached its obligations under Article 10(1) of the ECT to provide fair and equitable treatment, to observe obligations entered into with investors (the umbrella clause), and to refrain from unreasonable or discriminatory measures. Additionally, the Claimant asserts that the regulatory changes amounted to an unlawful expropriation of its investments in violation of Article 13 of the ECT, severely diminishing project revenues and forcing the Claimant to abandon or divest from other renewable energy projects in development.

Requested Relief

In its Request for Relief, the Claimant seeks a declaration that the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of ICSID and that Spain has breached its obligations under Part III of the ECT and international law. The Claimant requests full compensation for all damages suffered, including invested sums, lost profits, and consequential damages, alongside an award for the costs of the arbitration and pre- and post-award compound interest.
31 Aug 2020
Dissenting Opinion of David R. Haigh
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Dissenting Opinion of David R. Haigh
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
David R. Haigh
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
Daniel Bethlehem
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Kenneth R. Fleuriet, Amy Roebuck Frey, Héloïse Hervé, Isabel San Martin, Reginald R. Smith, Kevin D. Mohr, Enrique J. Molina, Christopher S. Smith, King & Spalding
Respondent's counsel
José Manuel Gutiérrez Delgado, Gabriela Cerdeiras Megias, Pablo Elena Abad, Antolin Fernandez Antuña, María del Socorro Garrido Moreno, Rafael Gil Nievas, Monica Moraleda Saceda, Elena Oñoro Sainz, Amaia Rivas Kortazar, Diego Santacruz Descartin, Francisco de la Torre Diaz, Alberto Torró Molés, Attorney General's Office of Spain
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Dissenting Opinion of David R. Haigh
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


31 Aug 2020
Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
David R. Haigh
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
Daniel Bethlehem
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Kenneth R. Fleuriet, Amy Roebuck Frey, Héloïse Hervé, Isabel San Martin, Reginald R. Smith, Kevin D. Mohr, Enrique J. Molina, Christopher S. Smith, King & Spalding
Respondent's counsel
José Manuel Gutiérrez Delgado, Gabriela Cerdeiras Megias, Pablo Elena Abad, Antolin Fernandez Antuña, María del Socorro Garrido Moreno, Rafael Gil Nievas, Monica Moraleda Saceda, Elena Oñoro Sainz, Amaia Rivas Kortazar, Diego Santacruz Descartin, Francisco de la Torre Diaz, Alberto Torró Molés, Attorney General's Office of Spain
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


10 Jan 2022
Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's request for reconsideration
Document provided by: IAReporter
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's request for reconsideration
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
David R. Haigh
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
Daniel Bethlehem
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Kenneth R. Fleuriet, Amy Roebuck Frey, Héloïse Hervé, Isabel San Martin, Reginald R. Smith, Kevin D. Mohr, Enrique J. Molina, Christopher S. Smith, King & Spalding
Respondent's counsel
José Manuel Gutiérrez Delgado, Gabriela Cerdeiras Megias, Pablo Elena Abad, Antolin Fernandez Antuña, María del Socorro Garrido Moreno, Rafael Gil Nievas, Monica Moraleda Saceda, Elena Oñoro Sainz, Amaia Rivas Kortazar, Diego Santacruz Descartin, Francisco de la Torre Diaz, Alberto Torró Molés, Attorney General's Office of Spain
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's request for reconsideration
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


7 Sep 2022
Procedural Order No. 6 (Second Decision on Reconsideration)
Document provided by: IAReporter
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Procedural Order No. 6 (Second Decision on Reconsideration)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
David R. Haigh
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
Daniel Bethlehem
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Kenneth R. Fleuriet, Amy Roebuck Frey, Héloïse Hervé, Isabel San Martin, Reginald R. Smith, Kevin D. Mohr, Enrique J. Molina, Christopher S. Smith, King & Spalding
Respondent's counsel
José Manuel Gutiérrez Delgado, Gabriela Cerdeiras Megias, Pablo Elena Abad, Antolin Fernandez Antuña, María del Socorro Garrido Moreno, Rafael Gil Nievas, Monica Moraleda Saceda, Elena Oñoro Sainz, Amaia Rivas Kortazar, Diego Santacruz Descartin, Francisco de la Torre Diaz, Alberto Torró Molés, Attorney General's Office of Spain
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Procedural Order No. 6 (Second Decision on Reconsideration)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


29 Sep 2022
Award
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Award
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
David R. Haigh
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
Daniel Bethlehem
Tribunal/Panel chair
Chair/President:
Lawrence Collins
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Kenneth R. Fleuriet, Amy Roebuck Frey, Héloïse Hervé, Reginald R. Smith, Kevin D. Mohr, Christopher S. Smith
Respondent's counsel
María del Socorro Garrido Moreno, Gabriela Cerdeiras Megias, Lorena Fatas López, Antolin Fernandez Antuña, Patricia Froehlingsdorf Nicolás, José Manuel Gutiérrez Delgado, Lourdes Martinez de Victoria Gómez, Amparo Monterrey Sânchez, Monica Moraleda Saceda, Elena Oñoro Sainz, Amaia Rivas Kortazar, Diego Santacruz Descartin, Luis Enrique Vacas Chalfoun
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Richard Edwards, Moselle, Grunwald, Kirkpatrick
Respondent's expert
Eduard Saura, Christophe Schmit, Stéphane Perrotto
Claimant's witness
Maria Helena Brandão
Respondent's witness
Jorge Servert del Rio
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Francisco Grob Duhalde, Anna Toubiana
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Cavalum SGPS S.A., King & Spalding, Abogacía General del Estado, FTI Consulting, Compass Lexecon, Accuracy, Spain
Document Summary
Award
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is the final Award in ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34 between Cavalum SGPS, S.A. and the Kingdom of Spain. The Award follows the Tribunal’s Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum dated 31 August 2020, wherein the Tribunal found by majority that Spain breached the fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard under Article 10(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Specifically, the Tribunal held that Spain's enactment of a New Regulatory Regime undermined the Claimant’s legitimate expectations to the extent that the return on its photovoltaic (PV) investments fell short of a reasonable rate of return. The present Award determines the quantum of compensation owed to the Claimant.

Principal Legal and Procedural Issues

The primary issues before the Tribunal concerned the calculation of the post-tax reasonable rate of return (RRR) based on the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) as of 30 June 2014, and the actual internal rates of return (IRR) for the Claimant’s seven PV plants. The Tribunal was required to resolve expert disagreements regarding the appropriate methodology for calculating damages, specifically whether to utilize actual investment costs or standard investment costs, how to account for the "claw-back" effect of the new regime, the compensability of losses related to three abandoned projects, and the applicable rates for pre- and post-award interest.

Parties' Positions

The Claimant, relying on FTI Consulting, argued for a 7.8% RRR and asserted that damages should be calculated using standard investment costs to reward developer efficiency. The Claimant also sought compensation for sunk costs in three abandoned projects, arguing their abandonment was a direct consequence of Spain's breach of the stability obligation. The Respondent, relying on Accuracy, proposed a 5.5% to 6.5% RRR and maintained that actual investment costs must be used. Spain further contended that the abandonment of the projects was a voluntary business decision that did not flow from the regulatory changes.

Tribunal's Analysis and Findings

The Tribunal determined that the appropriate post-tax RRR is 7%, comprising a 6% WACC plus a 1% efficiency premium. By majority, the Tribunal rejected the Claimant's reliance on standard investment costs. Applying the customary international law standard of full reparation articulated in Chorzów Factory, the Tribunal held that actual damages must be calculated using actual investment costs rather than hypothetical standard costs. Applying the 7% RRR to the actual investment costs, the Tribunal found that only two of the seven PV plants fell short of a reasonable return, resulting in €5.6 million in damages. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the Claimant's claim for €1.8 million in wasted expenditure for the abandoned projects, concluding that their abandonment was a reasonable mitigation response to the instability caused by Spain's breach.

Dispositive Ruling

The Tribunal ordered Spain to pay the Claimant €7.4 million in compensatory damages, comprising €5.6 million for the operational plants and €1.8 million for the abandoned projects. Spain was directed to pay pre- and post-award interest on these amounts at the 1-year Euribor rate plus 1%, compounded annually. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered Spain to pay €1.5 million towards the Claimant's legal fees, with the costs of the arbitration to be borne equally by the Parties.
23 Dec 2025
Decision on Annulment
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Decision on Annulment
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
Dominique Hascher
ICSID Annulment Committee members
Fernando Cantuarias Salaverry, Yannick Radi
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Kenneth R. Fleuriet, Amy Roebuck Frey, Héloïse Hervé, Reginald R. Smith, Kevin D. Mohr, Malik Aimeur, Mohamed Al Ahmadani Al Ali
Respondent's counsel
María del Socorro Garrido Moreno, Guillermo Blanco Cenjor, Jaime Campmany Márquez de Prado, Gabriela Cerdeiras Megias, Inés Guzmán Gutiérrez, Lourdes Martinez de Victoria Gómez, Elena Oñoro Sainz, Marina Adela Porta Serrano, Amparo Monterrey Sânchez, Amparo Sanchez Aguilar, Eduardo Tahoces López
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Marco Tulio Montañés-Rumayor
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Cavalum SGPS S.A., King & Spalding, Accuracy, FTI Consulting, Spain
Document Summary
Decision on Annulment
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

This document is a Decision on Annulment issued by an ICSID ad hoc Committee concerning the Award dated 29 September 2022 in the arbitration between Cavalum SGPS, S.A. and the Kingdom of Spain. Both parties filed applications for annulment pursuant to Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. Cavalum sought partial annulment of the Tribunal's damages framework, while Spain sought full annulment of the Award, challenging both the Tribunal's jurisdiction and its findings on liability.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

Cavalum sought partial annulment under Article 52(1)(b) (manifest excess of powers) and Article 52(1)(e) (failure to state reasons). Cavalum argued that the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers by assessing damages based on the actual costs of Cavalum's specific plants rather than utilizing an efficient "standard plant" metric, which Cavalum alleged was the undisputed regulatory standard in Spain. Spain sought full annulment on the same statutory grounds, contending that the Tribunal failed to apply EU law. Specifically, Spain argued that the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers by upholding jurisdiction over an intra-EU dispute in contravention of the CJEU's Achmea and Komstroy judgments, and by failing to apply EU State aid rules to defeat Cavalum's legitimate expectations on the merits.

Committee's Analysis and Findings

The Committee dismissed both applications in their entirety. Addressing Cavalum's application, the Committee found no manifest excess of powers, determining that the Tribunal's reliance on actual investment costs was a tenable application of the international law of damages, specifically the Chorzów Factory principle of full reparation. The Committee concluded that the Tribunal did not depart from any clear agreement between the parties and provided intelligible reasons for its methodology.

Regarding Spain's application, the Committee held that the Tribunal's interpretation of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and the ICSID Convention was tenable. The Committee noted that the Tribunal had expressly considered the Achmea and Komstroy judgments but concluded they did not deprive it of jurisdiction under international law. The Committee emphasized that an arguable misinterpretation of the applicable law does not constitute a manifest excess of powers. Furthermore, the Committee found that the Tribunal adequately addressed EU State aid law as a factual element in its assessment of legitimate expectations, and its refusal to apply EU law to defeat jurisdiction or liability was sufficiently reasoned and not censorable under Article 52.

Operative Decision

The Committee dismissed both Cavalum's and Spain's applications for annulment. In allocating costs, the Committee determined that as both parties were partially successful in defeating the other's application, each party shall bear its own legal fees and expenses. The costs of the proceedings, including ICSID administrative fees and the Committee's expenses, were apportioned such that each party bears the costs associated with its respective application. Finally, the Committee terminated the provisional stay of enforcement of the Award.
19 Aug 2026
Complaint
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Complaint
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
David R. Haigh
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
Daniel Bethlehem
Tribunal/Panel chair
Chair/President:
Lawrence Collins
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Thomas C.C. Childs, Mark McLennan, Matthew S. Rozen
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Cavalum SGPS S.A., King & Spalding, Spain
Document Summary
Complaint
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Complaint filed by Cavalum SGPS, S.A. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award rendered on September 29, 2022, in ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34 against the Kingdom of Spain.

Legal and Factual Background

The underlying dispute arose under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) concerning Spain's regulatory modifications to its renewable energy incentive regime, specifically the rollback of feed-in tariffs established under Royal Decrees 661/2007 and 1578/2008. The ICSID tribunal found that Spain breached its obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment under Article 10(1) of the ECT by fundamentally altering the regulatory framework, thereby undermining the claimant's legitimate expectations of a reasonable rate of return.

Relief Sought

Pursuant to Article 54 of the ICSID Convention and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, the claimant requests that the District Court enter an order recognizing the ICSID award and enforcing its pecuniary obligations as if it were a final judgment of a court of general jurisdiction of one of the several States. The requested judgment includes EUR 7.4 million in compensatory damages, EUR 1.5 million in legal fees, and applicable pre-award and post-award interest compounded annually. The claimant notes that an ad hoc annulment committee dismissed Spain's annulment application in December 2025, terminating any stay of enforcement and rendering the award fully enforceable.