A 2022 ICSID award required Spain to pay Eurus Energy EUR 106.2 million for breach of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Energy Charter Treaty</span> (“<span class="news-text_medium">ECT</span>”). The dispute arose from retrospective reductions to a Spanish renewable-energy subsidy scheme.
Eurus assigned its rights under the award to Blasket. Blasket obtained, without notice, judicial authorisation to enforce the award and attach real estate in Utrecht owned by Spain. The property was used by a Spanish public-law body.
Spain applied to have the attachment lifted. The Dutch State intervened in support of Spain and the European Commission participated as amicus curiae.
The Court rejected Blasket’s challenge to its jurisdiction. It held Article 1(4) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Dutch ICSID Implementation Act</span> does not give exclusive jurisdiction to a particular Dutch court. Accordingly, the multiple-forum rule in Article 438 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Dutch Code of Civil Procedure</span> remained available.
It also held the assignment was valid. Neither the ICSID Convention nor the ECT prevents the transfer of rights under an award.
The defect in service was decisive. Article 430(3) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Dutch Code of Civil Procedure</span> requires service of the writ upon the party against whom enforcement is sought.
The document served upon Spain purported to be an authenticated copy of the enforcement order. However, it was an unsworn English translation containing a reproduced authentication stamp and pasted judicial signatures. The Court stressed that proper service was Spain’s only means of being notified of the enforceable title relied upon against it. It therefore found the enforcement void.
The Court further held the property was protected by immunity from execution. Applying Article 19(c) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities</span> and the Dutch Supreme Court’s decision in Samruk (<span class="news-text_italic-underline">ECLI:NL:HR:2020:2103</span>), it found Blasket bore the burden of showing that the property’s proceeds had no ultimate public purpose. Blasket had not met that burden.
In an obiter dictum, the Court considered Spain’s state aid argument. Spain had notified the prospective payment of the award to the European Commission as potential state aid pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.
Referring to the CJEU’s decision in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Commission v European Food and Others (Case C-638/19 P, EU:C:2022:50) (Micula)</span>, the Court stated it was ‘by no means excluded’ that the TFEU standstill obligation takes priority and prevents payment until the Commission has reached its decision.
The Court declined jurisdiction over Blasket’s counterclaim against Spain. That claim sought an order requiring Spain to identify assets available for attachment. The Court held there was no valid waiver of immunity, as the counterclaim did not arise from the same legal relationship as the main proceedings.
The decision demonstrates the practical importance of strict compliance with Dutch service requirements in award-enforcement proceedings, as well as the continued protection afforded to state property with an ultimate public purpose. It also adds to the growing body of European court decisions recognising EU state aid rules may obstruct payment or enforcement of intra-EU Energy Charter Treaty awards.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:8903</span>, Rotterdam District Court, 21 July 2026.
