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

NextEra Energy v. Spain, Supplemental Brief of NextEra and Others, Sep 12, 2025

12 Sep 2025
NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. and NextEra Energy Spain Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/11
View case details
Supplemental Brief of NextEra and Others
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Supplemental Brief of NextEra and Others
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
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Timothy G. Nelson, Scott Boisvert, David Herlihy, Shay Dvoretzky, Parker Rider-Longmaid, Bradley A. Klein, Sylvia O. Tsakos
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
A. & O. Shearman, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Blasket Renewable Investments, NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V., Spain
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Supplemental Brief of NextEra and Others
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is a Supplemental Brief filed by the Respondents (award-holders) with the Supreme Court of the United States, opposing the Kingdom of Spain's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The brief's primary purpose is to introduce a recent, persuasive judicial decision from the Federal Court of Australia, which the Respondents argue demonstrates that the Supreme Court's intervention is unwarranted.

The Respondents' central argument is that the Australian Federal Court's decision, which held the same ICSID awards enforceable against Spain, fatally undermines Spain's petition. The brief highlights two key findings from the Australian court. First, that Spain, by ratifying the ICSID Convention, waived its sovereign immunity from proceedings to enforce ICSID awards in the courts of other member states. The Respondents contend this provides an independent basis for jurisdiction in U.S. courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's (FSIA) waiver exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1), thereby making the question presented by Spain concerning the FSIA's arbitration exception (§ 1605(a)(6)) not outcome-determinative.

Second, the brief emphasizes the Australian court's rejection of Spain's argument that its obligations under European Union law could supersede its international treaty commitments under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. The Respondents argue that this ruling confirms the principle that a state cannot invoke its internal law to justify a failure to perform a treaty. This directly counters Spain's core defense in the underlying enforcement action. The brief asserts that these points, which Spain's petition largely ignores, are dispositive and confirm that no certworthy issue is presented.

Consequently, the Respondents request that the Supreme Court deny the petition for certiorari. In the alternative, should the Court grant review, the Respondents urge it to also consider the questions of the intra-EU objection and the ICSID Convention waiver to achieve a complete resolution of the jurisdictional issues.