![]() ![]() Whereas in the summary proceedings against the Dutch investors, the court found that it has jurisdiction, mainly because the defendant companies are based in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the judge found no jurisdiction based on other grounds, particularly as the interim judge found no links with the Netherlands. With that regard, the interim judge found that it could not have jurisdiction on the sole basis that there is a pending proceeding on the merits before the District Court of Amsterdam. First, the interim judge considered that by bringing a civil action before the District Court of Amsterdam, in which, although not explicitly seeking the annulment of the arbitral award, claims have been filed with the purpose of preventing the enforcement of the arbitral award, Spain has prima facie incorrectly established an additional forum outside the scope of the New York Convention. In the summary proceeding against Blasket Renewable Investment LLC, the interim relief judge ruled that they had no jurisdiction. The Dutch judges in interim relief had to determine whether they had jurisdiction, whether Spain’s claims were plausible, and if so, whether the requested interim measures could be ordered. These summary proceedings aimed to halt the enforcement proceedings in the US, which were pending before the District Court of the District of Columbia. In addition to these proceedings, Spain also initiated summary proceedings against AES and AEF (and its (indirect) directors), as well as separately against an American company, Blasket Renewable Investment LLC, to which the claims of AES and AEF have been assigned. Therefore, Spain claims that any payment made under the arbitral award would constitute unlawful state aid, particularly considering that AES and AEF’s claims pertain to Spanish measures supporting renewable energy. Spain contends that no agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties, citing previous CJEU cases such as Achmea, Komstroy, and PL Holdings, which establish that disputes between a Member State and an investor from another Member State under the Energy Charter Treaty cannot be resolved through arbitration. In essence, Spain bases its requests on the argument that enforcing the arbitral award would compel Spain to violate EU state aid laws. an injunction prohibiting AES and AEF from taking measures aimed at the enforcement of the arbitral award.a declaration that the final arbitral award qualifies as unlawful state aid, and.Spain initiated proceedings before the District Court of Amsterdam, under case number C/13/728512, requesting: The case before the District Court of Amsterdam This blog post discusses the decision of the Dutch interim judges in first instance in this dispute and in particular the consideration that anti-enforcement proceedings against arbitral awards could violate the New York Convention. Additionally, Spain initiated interim relief procedures before the District Court of Amsterdam, seeking measures to cease the then pending enforcement procedure in the US, in which the petition of enforcement has later been dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. In response, Spain sought countermeasures before the District Court of Amsterdam to halt the enforcement of the arbitral award, claiming that it qualifies as unlawful state aid. AES and AEF sought enforcement before the District Court of the District of Columbia. Despite Spain’s attempts to set aside the award, the Tribunal Fédéral of Switzerland denied the application. (AES) and EUR 11.1 million to Ampere Equity Fund B.V. ![]() The tribunal found that Spain had violated the Energy Charter and ordered Spain to pay damages of EUR 15.4 million to AES Solar Energy Coöperatief U.A. On 28 February 2020, two Dutch investors obtained a favourable arbitral award against Spain.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |