This HTML version is machine-generated. Always consult the original document.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

------------------------------------------------------------------------x

------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION TO ENFORCE ARBITRAL AWARD AND ANNULMENT COSTS

[Page 1]

Petitioners Sevilla Beheer B.V., Cabra Beheer B.V., Cross Retail S.L., RA Solar Operaciones España, S.L., Planta Solar Afanasenkov, S.L., Planta Solar Duckworth, S.L., Generador F. Peñas RA Bart, S.L., Generador F. Peñas RA Bas, S.L., Generador F. Peñas RA Jeroen, S.L., Generador F. Peñas RA Minke, S.L., Generador F. Peñas RA Sergio, S.L., Parque Empresarial de Brafin FV, S.L. (together, “Petitioners”) state as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Petitioners bring this action to enforce an arbitral award (the “Award”) of €6,756,894, plus interest, legal representation fees and costs, issued on May 22, 2023, and legal fees and expenses in the amount of €512,898.60 plus interest (the “Annulment Costs”), awarded on June 11, 2025, and incurred in connection with an ICSID annulment decision (the “Decision on Annulment”) in the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) Case No. ARB/16/27 against Respondent, the Kingdom of Spain (“Spain”). A certified copy of the Award is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Christopher M. Ryan (“Ryan Declaration”), which is filed herewith.¹ A certified copy of the Decision on Annulment is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Ryan Declaration.²

2. The Award was rendered in Petitioners’ favor following the arbitration proceedings (the “ICSID Proceedings”) conducted in accordance with the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”). A

1 All citations to the Award, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Ryan Declaration, will be in the form of “Award.” The Award also includes the Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and the Principles of Quantum (the “ICSID Decision”). The ICSID Decision is an integral part of the Award and provides the factual and legal background of the dispute. Award ¶ 6. All citations to the ICSID Decision portion of Exhibit 1 will be in the form of “ICSID Decision.”

2 All citations to the Decision on Annulment, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Ryan Declaration, will be in the form of “Decision on Annulment.”

[Page 2]

copy of the ICSID Convention is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Ryan Declaration. The Award imposed pecuniary obligations on Spain in the amount of €6,756,894, together with interest on the sum awarded from June 20, 2014 to the date of payment in full of all sums due pursuant to the Award at a rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually. Award ¶ 222. In addition, and beyond these monetary damages, the Award further imposed an obligation on Spain to pay the Petitioners’ costs of the ICSID Proceedings incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration in the amount of US $15,000, and Petitioners’ legal representation costs incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration in the amount of €15,000. Id.

3. The Decision on Annulment was rendered in Petitioners’ favor following the annulment proceedings conducted in accordance with the ICSID Convention. The Decision on Annulment imposed an obligation on Spain to reimburse the Petitioners’ legal fees and expenses incurred in the annulment proceedings, amounting to €512,898.60, along with interest at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually from the date of the Decision on Annulment until full payment is made. Decision on Annulment ¶ 193.

4. Petitioners’ June 20, 2024 and July 9, 2025 requests to Spain for payment remain unanswered.

5. To date, Spain has not paid any portion of the Award or Annulment Costs.

6. Pursuant to Article 54 of the ICSID Convention and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, arbitral awards issued under the ICSID Convention are not subject to collateral attack and must be enforced

[Page 3]

in the same manner and given the same full faith and credit as if the award were a final judgment of a court in the United States.

7. Accordingly, Petitioners request that this Court enter an order enforcing the Award and Annulment Costs in the same manner as a final judgment issued by a court in the United States, and enter judgment in Petitioners’ favor in the amount of €6,756,894, together with (i) interest on the sum awarded from June 20, 2014 until the date of payment in full of all sums due pursuant to the Award at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually, (ii) US $15,000 of the costs of the ICSID Proceedings incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration, (iii) €15,000 of Petitioners’ legal representation costs incurred in connection with the ICSID Proceedings, (iv) €512,898.60 of Petitioners’ legal fees and expenses incurred in the annulment proceeding, along with interest at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually from the date of the Decision on Annulment until full payment is made, and (v) any other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

THE PARTIES

8. Petitioner Sevilla Beheer B.V. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands.³

9. Petitioner Cabra Beheer B.V. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands.⁴

10. Petitioner Cross Retail S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.

3 Petitioners are all Claimant entities (and their successors) from the underlying ICSID Proceedings, however Petitioners intend for Petitioner Sevilla Beheer B.V. to collect the entirety of the Award and Annulment Costs.

4 Cabra Beheer B.V. is the successor company of Claimant Cordoba Beheer B.V. in the underlying ICSID Proceedings.

[Page 4]

11. RA Solar Operaciones España, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.

12. Planta Solar Afanasenkov, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.⁵

13. Planta Solar Duckworth, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.⁶

14. Generador F. Peñas RA Bart, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.

15. Generador F. Peñas RA Bas, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.

16. Generador F. Peñas RA Jeroen, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.

17. Generador F. Peñas RA Minke, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.

5 Planta Solar Afanasenkov, S.L. is the successor company of the following Claimants in the underlying ICSID Proceedings: Planta Solar Ainsworth, S.L.; Planta Solar Almunza, S.L.; Planta Solar Aramboles, S.L.; Planta Solar Bayliss, S.L.; Planta Solar Borkowski, S.L.; Planta Solar Bourque, S.L.; Planta Solar Bullington, S.L.; Planta Solar Chimera, S.L.; Planta Solar Cummings, S.L.; Planta Solar Frolov, S.L.; Planta Solar Gelinas, S.L.; Planta Solar Hordichuck, S.L.; Planta Solar Ibister, S.L.; Planta Solar Kovalchuck, S.L.; Planta Solar Kvasha, S.L.; Planta Solar Laaksonen, S.L.; Planta Solar Ligtenberg, S.L.; Planta Solar Markwell, S.L.; Planta Solar Narveson, S.L.; Planta Solar Nedorost, S.L.; Planta Solar Oriolias, S.L.; Planta Solar Oropesa, S.L.; Planta Solar Oxspring, S.L.; Planta Solar Perlozzo, S.L.; Planta Solar Pichardo, S.L.; Planta Solar Procopec, S.L.; and Planta Solar Slusarski, S.L.

6 Planta Solar Duckworth, S.L. is the successor company of the following Claimants in the underlying ICSID Proceedings: Planta Solar Koronka, S.L.; Planta Solar Gaillard, S.L.; Planta Solar Heilman, S.L.; Planta Solar Journell, S.L.; Planta Solar Linebrink, S.L.; Planta Solar Majewski, S.L.; Planta Solar Fussel, S.L.; Planta Solar Gowdy, S.L.; Planta Solar Foulke, S.L.; and Planta Solar Maddon, S.L.

[Page 5]

18. Generador F. Peñas RA Sergio, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.⁷

19. Parque Empresarial de Brafin FV, S.L. is a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Spain.

20. Together, Petitioners own all interest and rights with respect to the Award and Annulment Costs, including all rights to the proceeds of both and all rights to enforce the Award and Annulment Costs.

21. Respondent Spain is a foreign state within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1602–11. Spain signed the ICSID Convention on March 21, 1994, and deposited its instrument of ratification on August 18, 1994. The ICSID Convention entered into force for Spain on September 17, 1994.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the FSIA because this action is a “nonjury civil action against a foreign state” on a claim “with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity” under the FSIA. 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a).

23. Pursuant to Section 1605(a)(1) of the FSIA, Spain is not entitled to immunity from this Court’s jurisdiction in an action to enforce an award issued pursuant to the ICSID Convention because Spain has waived any such immunity by agreeing to the ICSID Convention. See Tatneft v. Ukraine, 771 F. App’x 9, 9–10 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam); Blue Ridge Invs., L.L.C. v.

7 Generador F. Peñas RA Sergio, S.L. is the successor company of the following Claimants in the underlying ICSID Proceedings: Generador F. Peñas RA Richard, S.L.; Generador F. Peñas RA Linda, S.L.; Generador F. Peñas RA Raul, S.L.U.; Generador F. Peñas RA Mani, S.L.; Generador F. Peñas RA Miguel, S.L.U.; Generador F. Peñas RA Reinier, S.L.U.; Generador F. Peñas RA Rober S.L.; Generador F. Peñas RA Henk, S.L.U.; PS Ronda Juanjo 14, S.L.U.; and PS Ronda Yolanda 15, S.L.

[Page 6]

Republic of Argentina, 735 F.3d 72, 84 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that a foreign country waives sovereign immunity under the FSIA “by becoming a party to the ICSID Convention”).

24. Additionally, pursuant to Section 1605(a)(6) of the FSIA, Spain is not immune from suit before this Court because this is an action to enforce an arbitral award governed by the ICSID Convention, which is a treaty in force in the United States for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. See NextEra Energy Glob. Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, 112 F.4th 1088, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (holding that “district courts have jurisdiction to enforce [ICSID awards] under the FSIA’s arbitration exception.”);⁸ Blue Ridge Invs., L.L.C., 735 F.3d at 85 (“To our knowledge, every court to consider whether awards issued pursuant to the ICSID Convention fall within the arbitral award exception to the FSIA [as set forth in Section 1605(a)(6)] has concluded that they do.”). Spain is also not immune from suit because this is an action to enforce an arbitral award issued pursuant to an arbitration agreement. See Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), art. 26(3)(a), 26(4)(a)(i). A certified copy of the ECT is attached as Exhibit 4 to the Ryan Declaration.

25. In addition, this Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 1650a(b), which provides that “[t]he district courts of the United States . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction over actions and proceedings” to enforce awards entered under the ICSID Convention.

8 In NextEra, the D.C. Circuit explained that jurisdiction exists under the FSIA’s arbitration exception if the following “jurisdictional facts” are established: “(1) an arbitration agreement, (2) an arbitration award, and (3) a treaty potentially governing award enforcement.” NextEra, 112 F.4th at 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (citing Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200, 204 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). These jurisdictional facts are established here through the Energy Charter Treaty (Ryan Declaration, Ex. 4) to which Spain was party; Petitioners’ Award (Ryan Declaration, Ex. 1); and the ICSID Convention (Ryan Declaration, Ex. 3) which has entered into force for Spain and the United States.

[Page 7]

26. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Spain pursuant to the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b), which provides that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state as to every claim for relief over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

27. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f)(4), which provides that a civil action against a foreign state may be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

28. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-307, does not apply to “enforcement of awards rendered pursuant to the [ICSID] [C]onvention.” 22 U.S.C. § 1650a(a). As such, the FAA’s jurisdictional requirements do not apply to this action.

THE DISPUTE, THE AWARD, AND THE ANNULMENT COSTS

29. The Award and Annulment Costs arise out of Petitioners’ investments in renewable energy (“RE”) projects in Spain. Award ¶ 5; Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and the Principles of Quantum (the “ICSID Decision”) ¶¶ 115 et seq; Decision on Annulment ¶¶ 1, 81, 158 et seq.

30. In the 1990s, Spain began to develop a “Special Regime” to encourage investment in its RE generation sector. ICSID Decision ¶¶ 151 et seq. Over the course of the following decade, Spain continued to enact legislation related to its “Special Regime,” see id. ¶¶ 162–204, culminating in significant changes in 2007 when Spain enacted Royal Decree 661/2007, modifying the previous regulatory regime to attract investments in solar facilities and other forms of RE. Id. ¶¶ 234–45, 249, 253–61. In reliance upon certain financial incentives and inducements offered by Spain pursuant to the Special Regime, Petitioners made substantial investments in RE projects in Spain, including by purchasing and developing five photovoltaic plants. Award ¶ 5 n.2; ICSID Decision ¶¶ 115–34. In total, Petitioners invested €56.6 million between 2007 and 2010 to construct these photovoltaic plants. ICSID Decision ¶ 129.

[Page 8]

31. Petitioners relied on the stability of the regulatory regime established by Royal Decree 661/2007 in investing in the construction of these five photovoltaic farms at a cost of €56.6 million. Id. ¶¶ 309, 816.

32. Between 2010 and 2014, Spain adopted a series of laws limiting and then revoking the economic incentives extended to RE investors such as Petitioners. E.g., Id. ¶¶ 361–62, 365–68, 377–85, 439–46, 450–52, 459–70. Spain’s policy reversal culminated in the implementation of an entirely new regulatory regime in 2014 that dismantled the legislation upon which Petitioners had relied in making their investments. Id. ¶¶ 502–08. The rescission of these incentives caused substantial harm to the value of the investments that Petitioners had made based on the system adopted by Spain. See id. ¶¶ 982–1013.

33. Petitioners’ investments in photovoltaic projects were governed by the ECT, which “establishes a legal framework [for] promot[ing] long-term cooperation in the energy field.” ECT, art. 2; see also ICSID Decision ¶ 531. The ECT protects investments in the territory of a Contracting Party to the treaty by “Investors” located or incorporated in other Contracting Parties. ECT, arts. 1(7), 10, 26.

34. Spain signed the ECT on December 17, 1994, and ratified the ECT on December 11, 1997.⁹ On May 16, 2024, Spain submitted a notification of withdrawal from the ECT.¹⁰ Spain’s withdrawal from the ECT took effect on April 17, 2025.¹¹ Pursuant to Article 47(3) of the

9 Energy Charter Treaty Contracting Parties and Signatories / Spain, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CHARTER (last accessed April 29, 2026), https://www.energychartertreaty.org/treaty/contracting-parties-and-signatories/spain/.

10 Written notification of withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CHARTER (last accessed April 29, 2026), https://www.energycharter.org/media/news/article/written-notification-of-withdrawal-from-the-energy-charter-treaty-3/.

11 Id.

[Page 9]

ECT, all the investments covered by the ECT at the time Spain’s withdrawal took effect continue to enjoy protection for 20 years from the date of Spain’s withdrawal and Spain remains a contracting party to the ECT for purposes of the ICSID Proceedings and annulment proceedings.¹²

35. Spain is a contracting party to the ICSID Convention.¹³ Spain consented to submit disputes arising under the ECT to arbitration under the ICSID Convention. See ECT, art. 26(3)(a), (4)(a)(i) (Ryan Declaration Ex. 4).

36. Petitioners are incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands and Spain, which are contracting parties to both the ECT¹⁴ and the ICSID Convention.¹⁵ Petitioners’ investments in Spain are therefore protected pursuant to the ECT.

37. On August 1, 2016, Petitioners filed their request for arbitration (the “Request for Arbitration”) against Spain with ICSID. ICSID Decision ¶ 6. Petitioners claimed that Spain’s displacement of the legislative framework upon which Petitioners’ investments depended violated Spain’s obligation under Article 10(1) of the ECT to provide Petitioners’ investments with fair and equitable treatment. Id. ¶¶ 704–6.

38. On August 12, 2016, the Secretary-General of ICSID registered the Request for Arbitration in accordance with Article 36(3) of the ICSID Convention. Id. ¶ 7. On February 7, 2017, a three-arbitrator ICSID arbitral tribunal (the “Tribunal”) was duly constituted, with all three arbitrators accepting their appointments. Id. ¶ 16.

12 ECT, art. 47(3) (Ryan Declaration Ex. 4).

13 List of Contracting States and Other Signatories of the Convention, ICSID (August 4, 2021), https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2021_Aug_4_ICSID_3_ENG.pdf.

14 Energy Charter Treaty Signatories / Contracting Parties, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CHARTER (Updated February 18, 2019), https://energycharter.org/process/energy-charter-treaty-1994/energy-charter-treaty/signatories-contracting-parties/.

15 Supra n. 13.

[Page 10]

39. A hearing on the merits and jurisdiction (the “Hearing”) was held before the Tribunal in Paris, France, from March 18, 2019 to March 22, 2019. Id. ¶ 64. Both Spain and Petitioners were represented by counsel and fully participated in the Hearing. Id.

40. On February 11, 2022, the Tribunal issued the ICSID Decision, ruling in favor of Petitioners after finding Spain liable for breaching Article 10(1) of the ECT with respect to certain investments. Id. ¶ 1080.

41. On June 29, 2022, Spain submitted a Request for Reconsideration of the ICSID Decision in relation to the Tribunal’s findings on jurisdiction. Award ¶ 14.

42. On August 11, 2022, the Tribunal rejected Spain’s Request for Reconsideration. Id. ¶ 16.

43. On December 27, 2022, Spain submitted a Second Request for Reconsideration of the ICSID Decision in relation to the Tribunal’s findings on jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 21.

44. On January 30, 2023, the Tribunal rejected Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration. Id. ¶ 23.

45. On March 6, 2023, the Tribunal declared the proceedings closed. Id. ¶ 27.

46. On May 22, 2023, the Tribunal issued the Award, awarding damages (including interest) and partial costs to Petitioners. Id. ¶ 222. The ICSID Decision issued on February 11, 2022 was “made an integral part” of the Tribunal’s Award. Id. ¶ 6. In its comprehensive 359-page Decision, the Tribunal had found that Spain breached its obligations under Article 10(1) of the ECT “to the extent that it applied the New [RE] Regime retroactively to the remuneration already received by [Petitioners’] PV Plants under [the prior legal regime]” and “to the extent (if any) that the New Regime does not provide a reasonable return to [Petitioners’] PV Plants at a rate of 7% after taxes.” ICSID Decision ¶ 1080.

[Page 11]

47. On September 19, 2023, the Secretary-General of ICSID received an application pursuant to Article 52 of the ICSID Convention for annulment of the Award (“Application for Annulment”). See Decision on Annulment ¶ 1.

48. On September 22, 2023, the Secretary-General of ICSID notified Petitioners that an Application for Annulment was registered and that, pursuant to Article 52(3) of the ICSID Convention, the Chairman of the Administrative Council of ICSID would appoint an ad hoc Committee to consider the Application for Annulment (the “Committee”). Id. ¶ 2.

49. On May 20, 2025, the annulment proceedings closed. Id. ¶ 36.

50. On June 11, 2025, the Committee unanimously rejected Spain’s Application for Annulment and issued the Decision on Annulment ordering Spain to (i) bear the costs of the annulment proceedings, including the fees and expenses of the Committee and ICSID’s administrative fees and direct expenses, which amount to US $407,227.10, and (ii) reimburse Petitioners for their legal fees and expenses incurred in the annulment proceeding, amounting to €512,898.60, along with interest at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually from the date of the Decision on Annulment until full payment is made. Id. ¶ 193.

51. Petitioners’ Award issued by the Tribunal on May 22, 2023 and the Annulment Costs issued on June 11, 2025 remain unpaid to date.

52. In the Award, the Tribunal awarded Petitioners damages in the amount of €6,756,894, together with (i) interest on the award from June 20, 2014 at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually, (ii) Petitioners’ share of the costs of the ICSID Proceedings incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration in the amount of US $15,000, and (iii) Petitioners’ legal representation costs incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration in the amount of €15,000. Award ¶ 222.

[Page 12]

53. In the Decision on Annulment, the Committee awarded Petitioners €512,898.60 of Petitioners’ legal fees and expenses incurred in the annulment proceeding, along with interest at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually from the date of the Decision on Annulment until full payment is made. Decision on Annulment ¶ 192.

54. In accordance with Article 53 of the ICSID Convention, the Award and the Annulment Costs are immediately enforceable. ICSID Convention, art. 53 (Ryan Declaration Ex. 3) (providing that “[t]he award shall be binding on the parties,” and that in the absence of a stay, “[e]ach party shall abide by and comply with the terms of the award”).

LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF

55. Article 54 of the ICSID Convention requires contracting states to “recognize an award rendered pursuant to [the] Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State.” ICSID Convention, art. 54(1) (Ryan Declaration Ex. 3). The ICSID Convention also provides that “[a] Contracting State with a federal constitution may enforce such an award in or through its federal courts and may provide that such courts shall treat the award as if it were a final judgment of the courts of a constituent state.” Id. The obligations of contracting states under Article 54 also apply “to proceedings before the [annulment] Committee.” ICSID Convention, art. 52(4) (Ryan Declaration Ex. 3).

56. The United States is a contracting state to the ICSID Convention¹⁶ and is therefore obligated to recognize and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by the Award and the Annulment Costs as if they were a final judgment of a court of the United States. This obligation is set out in 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, which provides in relevant part:

16 Supra n. 13.

[Page 13]

(a) An award of an arbitral tribunal rendered pursuant to chapter IV of the convention shall create a right arising under a treaty of the United States. The pecuniary obligations imposed by such an award shall be enforced and shall be given the same full faith and credit as if the award were a final judgment of a court of general jurisdiction of one of the several States. The Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) shall not apply to enforcement of awards rendered pursuant to the convention.

57. Arbitral awards issued against a foreign state pursuant to the ICSID Convention may be enforced by bringing a plenary action in federal court in compliance with the requirements for commencing a civil action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and with the personal jurisdiction, service, and venue requirements of the FSIA. See Blasket Renewable Invs., LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 3268233, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 24, 2025); Micula v. Gov’t of Romania, 104 F. Supp. 3d 42, 49–50 (D.D.C. 2015); Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96, 100, 117–20 (2d Cir. 2017).

58. Awards issued pursuant to the ICSID Convention are not subject to collateral attack in enforcement proceedings under 22 U.S.C. § 1650a. “Member states’ courts are . . . not permitted to examine an ICSID award’s merits, its compliance with international law, or the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction to render the award; under the Convention’s terms, they may do no more than examine the judgment’s authenticity and enforce the obligations imposed by the award.” Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd., 863 F.3d at 102; see also Miminco, LLC v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 79 F. Supp. 3d 213, 218 (D.D.C. 2015) (“a court’s confirmation of an ICSID award should entail nothing more than ministerial verification that the award is genuine”). Numerous courts in this District have agreed. See MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc v. Republic of Croatia, 2026 WL 621917, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2026); Nextera Energy Glob. Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2779908, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2025); 9Ren Holdings S.À.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2779795, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2025); Blasket Renewable Invs. LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025

[Page 14]

WL 3516146, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2025); Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2374517, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025); Infrastructure Servs. Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2320406, at *5 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2025).

59. The ICSID Convention therefore “reflects an expectation that the courts of a member nation will treat the award as final.” Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd., 863 F.3d at 102; see also id. at 118 (noting that an ICSID award-debtor is not “permitted to make substantive challenges to the award”); ICSID Convention, arts. 53(1), 54(1) (Ryan Declaration Ex. 3).

60. Consistent with this mandate, 22 U.S.C. § 1650a(a) provides that the FAA “shall not apply to enforcement of awards rendered pursuant to the convention,” thereby making the FAA’s defenses “unavailable to ICSID award-debtors in federal court enforcement proceedings.” Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd., 863 F.3d at 120–21.

61. District courts thus enforce ICSID awards without allowing substantive challenges to enforcement of the awards. See, e.g., MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc v. Republic of Croatia, 2026 WL 621917, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2026); Nextera Energy Glob. Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2779908, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2025); 9Ren Holdings S.À.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2779795, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2025); Blasket Renewable Invs. LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 3516146, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2025); Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2374517, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025); Infrastructure Servs. Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2320406, at *5 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2025); Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador, 2023 WL 2536368, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2023); Tethyan Copper Co. PTY Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 590 F. Supp. 3d 262, 275–76 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2022); Duke Energy Int’l Peru Invs. No. 1, Ltd. v. Republic of Peru, 904 F.

[Page 15]

Supp. 2d 131, 132–34 (D.D.C. 2012); Order, Republic of Panama v. Jurado, No. 8:12-cv-1647 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2013), ECF No. 18, 25.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

62. Petitioners restate and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Petition as set forth fully herein.

63. Arbitral awards issued pursuant to the ICSID Convention are subject to mandatory enforcement in the courts of the United States, which must give those awards the same full faith and credit as a final judgment issued by a state court. 22 U.S.C. § 1650a(a).

64. The Award and Annulment Costs were rendered in accordance with the ICSID Convention against Spain and in Petitioners’ favor.

65. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to an order (a) enforcing the Award and Annulment Costs in the same manner as a final judgment issued by a court of one of the several states, and (b) entering judgment in Petitioners’ favor in the amount specified in the Award and Annulment Costs.

66. Petitioners respectfully request that the Court enter the order and judgment in Petitioners’ favor in accordance with the currencies set forth in the Award and Annulment Costs.

67. Specifically, the Court should enter the following pecuniary obligations of the Award and Annulment Costs in their respective currencies: (i) Petitioners’ monetary damages of €6,756,894; (ii) the interest owed by Spain on such damages, which is to be calculated at the rate of EURIBOR plus one percent, compounded semi-annually, from June 20, 2014 through the date of full payment of the Award; (iii) Petitioners’ ICSID Proceeding costs incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration in the amount of US $15,000; (iv) Petitioners’ legal representation costs incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration in the

[Page 16]

amount of €15,000; and (v) €512,898.60 of Petitioners’ legal fees and expenses incurred in the annulment proceeding, along with interest at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually from the date of the Decision on Annulment until full payment is made. Award ¶ 222; Decision on Annulment ¶ 193. The Court has authority to enter judgment in euros without conversion to American dollars, particularly when requested by the award-creditor. See, e.g. Leidos, Inc. v. Hellenic Republic, 881 F.3d 213, 220 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Cont’l Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Fed. Gov’t of Nigeria, 932 F. Supp. 2d 153, 158 (D.D.C. 2013), aff’d, 603 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

68. Petitioners are thus entitled to an order enforcing such arbitral award as a judgment pursuant to Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, and entering judgment thereon in Petitioners’ favor (i) in the amount of €6,756,894, together with (ii) interest on the award from June 20, 2014 to date of payment at the rate of EURIBOR plus one percent, compounded semi-annually; (iii) Petitioners’ ICSID Proceeding costs incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration in the amount of US $15,000; (iv) Petitioners’ legal representation costs incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration in the amount of €15,000; and (v) €512,898.60 of Petitioners’ legal fees and expenses incurred in the annulment proceeding, along with interest at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually from the date of the Decision on Annulment until full payment is made.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in favor of Petitioners and against Respondent and request that the Court issue an order:

(a) Recognizing and enforcing the Award and Annulment Costs in the same manner as a final judgment issued by a court of one of the several states;

[Page 17]

(b) Entering judgment against Spain and in Petitioners’ favor in the amount of €6,756,894, together with interest on the Award from June 20, 2014 to date of payment at the rate of EURIBOR plus one percent, compounded semi-annually;

(c) Entering judgment against Spain and in Petitioners’ favor in the amount of US $15,000 (Petitioners’ ICSID Proceeding costs incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration);

(d) Entering judgment against Spain and in Petitioners’ favor in the amount of €15,000 (Petitioners’ legal representation costs incurred as a result of Spain’s Second Request for Reconsideration);

(e) Entering judgment against Spain and in Petitioners’ favor in the amount of €512,898.60, along with interest on the Annulment Costs at the rate of EURIBOR plus 1 percent, compounded semi-annually from the date of the Decision on Annulment until full payment is made (Petitioners’ legal fees and expenses incurred in the annulment proceeding); and

(f) any other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

[Page 18]