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

Eurus Energy v. Spain, Judgment of the Rotterdam District Court, July 21, 2026

21 Jul 2026
Eurus Energy Holdings Corporation v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/4
View case details
Judgment of the Rotterdam District Court (Dutch)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Rotterdam District Court (Dutch)
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
Petra de Bruin
Claimant's counsel
Remme Verkerk, Hans Biezenaar, Allard Kool
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Kasper Jan Krzeminski, Maren Klein
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Sebastiaan Cnossen, Ronald Adriaan van der Horst
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
Blasket Renewable Investments LLC, Instituto Cervantes, Spain, Netherlands, European Commission
Country
Netherlands
Print reporter
Document Summary
Judgment of the Rotterdam District Court (Dutch)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

This document is a judgment in summary proceedings (kort geding) rendered by the District Court of Rotterdam. The Kingdom of Spain sought the immediate lifting of an executory attachment (beslag) levied by Blasket Renewable Investments LLC on a property located in Utrecht. Blasket, acting as the assignee of Eurus Energy Holdings Corporation, had previously obtained an ex parte leave for enforcement (exequatur) from the District Court of The Hague to enforce an ICSID arbitral award rendered against Spain. The State of the Netherlands intervened in the proceedings in support of Spain, and the European Commission submitted observations as amicus curiae.

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The principal issues before the Court were whether the executory attachment was procedurally defective and whether the attached property enjoyed sovereign immunity from execution. Spain argued that the attachment was void because Blasket failed to properly serve the authentic enforceable copy (grosse) of the exequatur decision. Furthermore, Spain, supported by the Netherlands, asserted that the property—used by the Instituto Cervantes—was designated for public, non-commercial purposes and thus immune from execution under customary international law. Blasket contended that the property was used for commercial events and language courses at market rates, thereby falling under the commercial exception to sovereign immunity.

Tribunal's Analysis and Findings

The Court first addressed the procedural validity of the attachment. Applying Article 430(3) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, the Court found that Blasket had failed to serve an official, authentic copy of the exequatur decision on Spain, having instead served an uncertified English translation with a copied stamp. This procedural defect rendered the enforcement measures void. Turning to the issue of sovereign immunity, the Court applied the standard reflected in Article 19(c) of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. The Court determined that the Instituto Cervantes is a public entity tasked with promoting Spanish language and culture. The Court held that the property's ultimate purpose is public and non-commercial, and the generation of incidental revenue from cultural events or courses did not alter its sovereign designation. Consequently, the property enjoyed immunity from execution.

Decision and Operative Directions

The District Court ordered the immediate lifting of the executory attachment on the Utrecht property. Blasket was ordered to pay the procedural costs incurred by both Spain and the State of the Netherlands. Furthermore, the Court declared itself incompetent to hear Blasket's conditional counterclaims against Spain and declared Blasket's claims against the European Union inadmissible.