Belgium lifts freeze on Spanish aviation funds

A Belgian court has ended a freeze on €75.76 million in Spanish air-navigation revenues, ruling that enforcing the underlying ICSID arbitration award would violate EU law. The decision blocks Blasket Renewable Investments, the creditor behind the award, from seizing funds tied to Spain’s state-owned air-navigation company, Enaire, distributed through Eurocontrol in Brussels.

The attachment targeted payments collected by Eurocontrol, which distributes air-navigation charges to member states. Spain’s deposit of €75,759,538 in May 2026, matching the frozen amount, was part of the enforcement dispute, though it does not cover Spain’s full arbitration liabilities. The case stems from an ICSID award linked to RREEF, whose rights Blasket acquired, following Spain’s decade-old reforms to renewable-energy subsidies.

Investors had argued that Spain’s changes to support frameworks for wind and solar projects unfairly impacted their investments. Successful claimants pursued enforcement outside Spain, including asset seizures abroad. The Belgian court’s ruling, however, sided with Spain and the European Commission, determining that the attachment conflicted with EU law. Blasket was ordered to cover legal costs.

The decision shows how EU legal constraints can override international arbitration awards, even when creditors identify assets within the bloc. For Spain, it removes a financial pressure point and reinforces its stance in ongoing enforcement disputes. Creditors now face a clearer hurdle: they must consider EU jurisdiction when pursuing payment, in addition to arbitration outcomes.

While the Belgian ruling is a setback, enforcement efforts continue in other jurisdictions, including the UK and US, where legal paths differ. Spain remains bound by the ICSID Convention (1994), obliging it to recognize awards under Article 54, but the case illustrates how EU law can shape enforcement realities. The outcome may prompt investors to reassess strategies when targeting assets across member states.

One practical effect of the ruling is likely to be tighter scrutiny of where creditors pursue enforcement. Courts in EU member states may now weigh EU law more heavily when evaluating foreign asset seizures tied to arbitration awards. This could slow down collection efforts for investors relying on cross-border enforcement, even when awards are legally valid under international standards.