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

RREEF v. Spain, Joint Motion to Govern Further Proceedings, August 3, 2026

3 Aug 2026
RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30
Joint Motion to Govern Further Proceedings
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Joint Motion to Govern Further Proceedings
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 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
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Joint Motion to Govern Further Proceedings
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Joint Motion to Govern Further Proceedings filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The filing addresses five consolidated appeals brought by the Kingdom of Spain challenging district court judgments that enforced international arbitral awards rendered under the Energy Charter Treaty. Following the United States Supreme Court’s denial of Spain’s petition for certiorari in a related enforcement action (NextEra), the D.C. Circuit directed the parties to propose a schedule for further appellate proceedings.

Parties' Positions on Briefing and Stay

Spain requests that the Court hold panel briefing in abeyance pending the disposition of its forthcoming petition for initial en banc review. Spain contends that en banc consideration is necessary to revisit threshold issues concerning the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and forum non conveniens, arguing that the D.C. Circuit’s prior precedent in NextEra was wrongly decided. Spain relies heavily on a recent amicus curiae brief filed by the United States Solicitor General, which criticized the NextEra panel’s analysis of the FSIA arbitration exception.

The Appellees strongly oppose any further stay or elongation of the briefing schedule. They argue that initial en banc review is highly disfavored and unlikely to be granted, noting the Court’s recent denial of en banc review in NextEra. Appellees characterize Spain’s proposed stay as a dilatory tactic designed to obstruct ongoing post-judgment execution and attachment proceedings. Consequently, Appellees request the implementation of a standard briefing schedule to ensure the expeditious resolution of the enforcement appeals.