Procedural Posture and Purpose

This document is a Brief in Opposition to a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, filed by Respondents NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V., NextEra Energy Spain Holdings B.V., and 9REN Holding S.À.R.L. before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief urges the Court to deny the petition filed by the Kingdom of Spain, which seeks review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirming the enforceability of two ICSID arbitral awards against Spain.

Key Legal Issues and Arguments in Opposition

The Respondents argue that the D.C. Circuit's decision is correct and does not warrant Supreme Court review. The brief addresses the central legal questions concerning U.S. court jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign in an award enforcement action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

First, concerning the FSIA's arbitration exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)), Respondents contend that Spain's ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) created an arbitration agreement "for the benefit of a private party." They assert that Spain's argument—that European Union law invalidates its consent to arbitrate with intra-EU investors—addresses the *scope* of the arbitration agreement, not its *existence*, and is therefore a question for the arbitral tribunal, not a U.S. court determining jurisdiction. Respondents maintain there is no circuit split on this issue that would justify the Court's intervention.

Second, the brief posits an independent basis for jurisdiction under the FSIA's waiver exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1)). Respondents argue that by ratifying the ICSID Convention, Spain implicitly waived its sovereign immunity from suits to enforce ICSID awards in the courts of other member states, including the United States. This position, they note, aligns with precedent from the Second Circuit and foreign high courts.

Third, Respondents defend the lower court's rejection of Spain's motion to dismiss on grounds of *forum non conveniens*. They argue that the doctrine is unavailable in ICSID award enforcement proceedings, which are governed by a specific federal statute (22 U.S.C. § 1650a) that mandates enforcement. Furthermore, they assert that even if the doctrine were applicable, Spain cannot satisfy its requirements, as no adequate alternative forum exists to enforce the awards and attach Spain's U.S.-based assets.

Requested Disposition

The Respondents respectfully request that the Supreme Court deny the Kingdom of Spain's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, thereby leaving the D.C. Circuit's judgment in place.