International Funds Question Brussels' Decision-Making on Renewable Energy Payments
Concerns arise over the role of European Commissioner Teresa Ribera amid ongoing international arbitration disputes.
International investment funds currently engaged in legal disputes against Spain have expressed doubts regarding the involvement of Teresa Ribera, the former Minister for Ecological Transition and current Vice-President of the European Commission, in Brussels’ decision to support Spain in its ongoing battle over unpaid renewable energy subsidies.
These funds contest that Ribera should abstain from participating in decisions regarding renewable payments and maintain a neutral stance while the matter is under investigation.
In November 2024, Ribera pledged to refrain from involvement in decisions concerning these subsidy payments.
However, international sources indicate that concerns are mounting over her potential influence on the European Commission’s determination that payments to French fund Antin constitute state aid, thereby directing Spain not to honor an arbitration ruling of €101 million.
This dispute has been ongoing since 2021, with funds highlighting that recent developments suggest Ribera may have exploited her position within the European Commission to influence decision-making in favor of Spain.
The funds have criticized the Commission for not responding to repeated requests for a written confirmation of her abstention.
It was only on February 21, 2025, that Yizhou Ren, an assistant at the Directorate General for Competition (DG COMP), verbally affirmed that Ribera had recused herself and that Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis would oversee the case, yet no formal documentation corroborating this claim has been produced.
Further concerns emerged following meetings on March 10, 2025, between legal representatives from the firm K&L Gates, who are acting on behalf of the funds, and key officials assigned to supervise the resolution of the Antin case.
Reports indicate that the officials were not adequately familiar with the complexities of the disputes related to the retrospective removal of renewable energy premiums in Spain.
Despite the lengthy duration of the case, the European Commission is suggested to have expedited a decision regarding the designation of the payment as state aid within a significantly shorter timeframe.
The investors are apprehensive that Ribera's potential prior influence could result in procedural irregularities and political interference, undermining legal security.
The international funds have indicated that they may escalate the issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to challenge Brussels’ decision.
Such an appeal would bring the matter before an independent judicial authority capable of scrutinizing and potentially invalidating decisions that violate European law.
Judicial rulings in jurisdictions outside the EU, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Belgium, have ruled in favor of the funds, enabling asset seizures against Spain within those territories.
The legal representatives assert that these external judicial decisions remain unaffected by the European Commission's ruling.
A legal spokesperson representing one of the impacted funds emphasized that the central issue at stake is the defense of the rule of law and the enforceability of valid arbitration awards.
They maintain that, should EU institutions fail to uphold these standards, courts worldwide will continue to ensure justice is served.
More than 50 arbitration cases have been initiated against Spain due to the reduction of renewable subsidies.
In several instances, Spain has prevailed; however, the majority of rulings have mandated the government to compensate the investing funds that acquired the initial investors' debt.
Current estimates suggest the total debt amounts to approximately €1.9 billion, with the outcomes of some arbitrations still pending.
The origins of this situation trace back to 2007, when Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's government introduced a 25% subsidy for renewable investments.
Upon taking office, Mariano Rajoy's government unilaterally reduced this subsidy to 7%, leading to a wave of arbitrations and rulings against Spain, which Ribera subsequently chose not to pay.
These funds contest that Ribera should abstain from participating in decisions regarding renewable payments and maintain a neutral stance while the matter is under investigation.
In November 2024, Ribera pledged to refrain from involvement in decisions concerning these subsidy payments.
However, international sources indicate that concerns are mounting over her potential influence on the European Commission’s determination that payments to French fund Antin constitute state aid, thereby directing Spain not to honor an arbitration ruling of €101 million.
This dispute has been ongoing since 2021, with funds highlighting that recent developments suggest Ribera may have exploited her position within the European Commission to influence decision-making in favor of Spain.
The funds have criticized the Commission for not responding to repeated requests for a written confirmation of her abstention.
It was only on February 21, 2025, that Yizhou Ren, an assistant at the Directorate General for Competition (DG COMP), verbally affirmed that Ribera had recused herself and that Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis would oversee the case, yet no formal documentation corroborating this claim has been produced.
Further concerns emerged following meetings on March 10, 2025, between legal representatives from the firm K&L Gates, who are acting on behalf of the funds, and key officials assigned to supervise the resolution of the Antin case.
Reports indicate that the officials were not adequately familiar with the complexities of the disputes related to the retrospective removal of renewable energy premiums in Spain.
Despite the lengthy duration of the case, the European Commission is suggested to have expedited a decision regarding the designation of the payment as state aid within a significantly shorter timeframe.
The investors are apprehensive that Ribera's potential prior influence could result in procedural irregularities and political interference, undermining legal security.
The international funds have indicated that they may escalate the issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to challenge Brussels’ decision.
Such an appeal would bring the matter before an independent judicial authority capable of scrutinizing and potentially invalidating decisions that violate European law.
Judicial rulings in jurisdictions outside the EU, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Belgium, have ruled in favor of the funds, enabling asset seizures against Spain within those territories.
The legal representatives assert that these external judicial decisions remain unaffected by the European Commission's ruling.
A legal spokesperson representing one of the impacted funds emphasized that the central issue at stake is the defense of the rule of law and the enforceability of valid arbitration awards.
They maintain that, should EU institutions fail to uphold these standards, courts worldwide will continue to ensure justice is served.
More than 50 arbitration cases have been initiated against Spain due to the reduction of renewable subsidies.
In several instances, Spain has prevailed; however, the majority of rulings have mandated the government to compensate the investing funds that acquired the initial investors' debt.
Current estimates suggest the total debt amounts to approximately €1.9 billion, with the outcomes of some arbitrations still pending.
The origins of this situation trace back to 2007, when Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's government introduced a 25% subsidy for renewable investments.
Upon taking office, Mariano Rajoy's government unilaterally reduced this subsidy to 7%, leading to a wave of arbitrations and rulings against Spain, which Ribera subsequently chose not to pay.
Translation:
Translated by AI
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
