|
The English Commercial Court has ruled that arbitral awards rendered under the ICSID Convention and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) are not assignable for enforcement purposes in England, rejecting an attempt by Delaware-based Blasket Renewable Investments to substitute as claimant in proceedings against Spain.
In Operafund Eco-Invest Sicav Plc & Schwab Holding v Spain [2025] EWHC 2874 (Comm), HH Judge Pelling KC held that, under the ICSID Convention and ECT, only original arbitration parties may seek recognition and enforcement. Applying the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the court interpreted the ICSID Convention’s Article 54 which obliges states to “recognize an award as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed” as referring exclusively to “a party” to the arbitration. The judge also found that ECT subrogation provisions were inconsistent with general assignment and that registration under the UK’s Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 did not create new substantive rights. The court also observed that customary public international law provided “no sufficiently widespread, representative or consistent practice” that these rights are (or are not) assignable.
Importantly, the court did not declare assignment agreements void generally, only that such agreements do not confer standing to enforce ICSID awards in England.
This strict treaty-based interpretation contrasts sharply with U.S. courts, which enforced the assigned ICSID awards in question. In Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 2025 WL 2336428, No. 1:22-cv-00334 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2025), the court enforced multiple ICSID awards assigned to Blasket, converting them into U.S. judgments under 22 U.S.C. § 1650a. Indeed, in Blue Ridge Invs. LLC v. Republic of Argentina, 902 F. Supp.2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), the court interpreted the meaning of “party” in Article 54(2) to include any party seeking enforcement, in contrast to the English Commercial Court’s narrow interpretation of “party” in Operafund.
U.S. courts have consistently rejected arguments that assignment violates the ICSID Convention, noting the absence of any express prohibition and the Convention’s mandate that awards be treated “as if” they were final judgments.
This divergence creates uncertainty for secondary markets in investment arbitration awards. For award creditors and assignees, these differences mean that enforcement planning must be tailored for each jurisdiction. Sequor Law can assist award creditors and assignees in pursuing U.S. enforcement actions against sovereigns, and coordinate a global recovery strategy through its international network of asset recovery and enforcement specialists.
| 
