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

Infrastructure Services (Antin) v. Spain, Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, August 10, 2026

10 Aug 2026
Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Energia Termosolar B.V. (formerly Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Antin Energia Termosolar B.V.)​ v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31
View case details
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the United States 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
Loren L. AliKhan
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
Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L., Spain
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This Order, issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, addresses the Petitioners' motion for relief to enforce a prior judgment against the Respondent, the Kingdom of Spain. The principal procedural issue before the Court was whether the statutory prerequisites under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) had been satisfied to permit the attachment and execution of the Respondent's assets.

The Court granted the Petitioners' motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1963. In its operative findings, the Court determined that a "reasonable period of time" had elapsed since the entry of the underlying September 30, 2025 judgment. Consequently, the Court authorized the Petitioners to pursue all permissible methods of attachment or execution against the Respondent's assets to satisfy the judgment.

Furthermore, the Court found that "good cause" had been shown under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, thereby permitting the Petitioners to register the judgment in any judicial district within the United States. Concurrently, the Court denied the Respondent's cross-motion seeking to stay the enforcement of the judgment and to quash related subpoenas, clearing the path for immediate enforcement actions.