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

BayWa v. Spain, Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, June 29, 2026

29 Jun 2026
BayWa r.e. Renewable Energy GmbH and BayWa r.e. Asset Holding GmbH v. Spain,  ICSID Case No. ARB/15/16
View case details
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
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
Amit P. Mehta
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
BayWa r.e. Asset Holding GmbH, BayWa r.e. Renewable Energy GmbH, Spain
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Context and Issues

This Order is issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action to enforce an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitral award rendered against the Kingdom of Spain. Following the court's denial of Spain's motion to dismiss, the parties agreed that the merits of confirmation were resolved, leaving only two outstanding issues for the court's determination: the applicable rates for prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

Court's Determination on Interest Rates

The court addressed each interest component separately. Regarding prejudgment interest, the court adopted the Respondent's position, holding that interest must be calculated precisely as prescribed by the ICSID tribunal—at the six-month EURIBOR rate, compounded semi-annually—even during periods when the rate was negative. The court reasoned that imposing a 0% floor, as requested by the Petitioner, would amount to an impermissible rewriting of the arbitral award, particularly as the tribunal was aware of the negative rate environment at the time it rendered its decision and did not include such a floor.

Concerning post-judgment interest, the court sided with the Petitioner, ruling that the U.S. statutory rate specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) applies. The court rejected the Respondent's argument that the award's interest terms should continue to apply until payment. Citing precedent within the district, the court affirmed that any deviation from the statutory post-judgment interest rate requires a "clear, unambiguous and unequivocal" agreement by the parties, which was not present in this case. The mere agreement to arbitrate under the ICSID Convention was deemed insufficient to displace the statutory framework for post-judgment interest in U.S. enforcement proceedings.

Disposition

Accordingly, the court directed the entry of a final judgment confirming the award. The judgment amount of $28,185,672.48 incorporates prejudgment interest calculated in accordance with the tribunal's original formula. The final judgment will also include post-judgment interest accruing at the U.S. statutory rate.