Why US Courts Are Becoming the Battleground for EU Arbitration Awards

Back in 2013, Spain slashed the incentives it had promised to solar investors. An ICSID tribunal said "that's a treaty violation" and ordered Spain to pay. Spain has spent over a decade trying not to pay.

This week's DC federal court order (Infrastructure Services Luxembourg v. Spain) is a masterclass in why "conflict of laws" arguments rarely work as a shield in enforcement proceedings. Spain's core argument: the EU has literally forbidden it from paying this award — it's classified as illegal state aid — so forcing Spain to post a bond to stay enforcement would put it in an impossible legal bind.

The court's response? In essence: that's not our problem, and honestly, it cuts against you. If EU law prevents Spain from voluntarily satisfying the judgment, that's precisely why the creditors need to secure their place in line now — not a reason to let Spain off the hook.

The court also greenlit something practically significant: registering the judgment beyond DC, specifically toward New York, where Spain is believed to hold attachable assets, and authorized creditors to move on discovery aimed at locating those assets (subpoenas to the Fed and The Clearing House). This is part of a broader pattern — multiple DC judges have now ruled the same way in parallel Spain enforcement cases.

The most interesting line in the opinion isn't really about Spain — it's about the other creditors. The court points out that Spain's inability to pay voluntarily (thanks to the EU's own veto) is actually a reason to move faster on attachment, not slower: with multiple award-holders now chasing the same pool of Spanish assets in the US, this is becoming a straightforward priority race.