Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Mikhail Maratovich Fridman v. Kingdom of the Netherlands,  PCA Case No. 2026-30

New
Short Name:

Fridman v. Netherlands

Case Type:
Investment Protection Disputes
Applicable Procedural Rules:
UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976)
Seat of Arbitration:
Dubai (United Arab Emirates)
Applicable Treaty:
Netherlands-Russia BIT (1989)
Applicable Legal Instruments:
Netherlands - Russia BIT (1989)
Economic Sector:
Financial and Insurance Activities

Available documents

26 Mar 2025
Notice of Arbitration
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Notice of Arbitration
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
Vladimir Pavic
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Baiju S. Vasani, Alexander Yean, Michael Swainston, Roger Gherson, Cherie Blair, James Palmer, Catriona Paterson, Thierry Marembert, Aaron Bass
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Twenty Essex, Brick Court Chambers, Gherson Solicitors, Omnia Strategy, Kiejman & Marembert, Netherlands
Document Summary
Notice of Arbitration
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Notice of Arbitration submitted by Mikhail Maratovich Fridman, a Russian national, initiating ad hoc arbitral proceedings against the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the 2021 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The dispute is brought pursuant to the 1989 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the "BIT"). The Claimant invokes the BIT's Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) clause to rely on the broader dispute settlement provisions found in the Netherlands-Yugoslavia and Dominican Republic-Netherlands BITs to establish the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the dispute.

Factual Background and Legal Issues

The dispute arises from the imposition of Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCMs), commonly referred to as sanctions, by the European Union and implemented by the Netherlands following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in February 2022. The Claimant alleges that he holds substantial indirect investments in the Netherlands, including interests in Amsterdam Trade Bank N.V. (ATB), Veon, Holland & Barrett, and X5 Retail Group. According to the Notice, the application of these UCMs effectively froze the Claimant's assets, stripped him of all control and economic benefit, and directly caused the bankruptcy of ATB despite its alleged solvency.

The principal legal issues concern whether the Netherlands' implementation and enforcement of the sanctions regime constitute breaches of the BIT. Specifically, the Claimant asserts that the State's actions amount to unlawful expropriation without compensation (Article 6), a denial of fair and equitable treatment and full security and protection (Article 3), and a violation of the guarantee of free transfer of funds (Article 4). The Claimant further contends that the Netherlands cannot rely on EU law or customary international law exceptions to derogate from its strict treaty obligations, arguing that the sanctions are arbitrary, discriminatory, and lack a basis in UN Security Council resolutions.

Relief Requested

In his request for relief, the Claimant seeks a formal declaration that the Netherlands breached its obligations under the BIT. Furthermore, the Claimant requests full compensation for all pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses sustained, conservatively estimated to exceed several hundreds of millions of dollars, alongside a claim for moral damages arising from the targeted nature of the sanctions. The Claimant also seeks pre-award and post-award compound interest, as well as the full costs and expenses of the arbitration proceedings. Procedurally, the Claimant appoints Mr. Vladimir Pavić as his party-appointed arbitrator and proposes Hong Kong as the arbitral seat.
23 May 2026
Procedural Order No. 1 (Rules of Procedure)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Procedural Order No. 1 (Rules of Procedure)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
Vladimir Pavic
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
J. Christopher Thomas
Tribunal/Panel chair
Chair/President:
Dyalá Jiménez
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Nathan Gervais
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Netherlands
Document Summary
Procedural Order No. 1 (Rules of Procedure)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture and Background

This document is Procedural Order No. 1, issued by the Arbitral Tribunal to establish the procedural framework for the arbitration between Mr. Mikhail Maratovich Fridman and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The proceedings are governed by the Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1989) and the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

Procedural Rules and Guidelines

The Tribunal set forth comprehensive directives governing the conduct of the arbitration. The procedural language was designated as English, with specific protocols established for translations and electronic filings. The Order incorporates the 2020 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration as an additional guideline for evidentiary matters, including document production via Redfern Schedules. Furthermore, the Tribunal mandated the application of the 2014 UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, subject to specific confidentiality protections and redaction procedures.

Directives on Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection

Notably, the Order includes modern provisions regulating the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data protection. The Tribunal expressly prohibited the uploading of confidential case materials to public AI systems without adequate data protection and forbade the submission of AI-generated legal authorities or unverified expert and witness testimony. Any AI tools utilized must strictly comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Operative Directions

The Tribunal adopted the Procedural Calendar, which contemplates both bifurcated and non-bifurcated scenarios, and established strict formatting, submission, and evidentiary guidelines for all pleadings, witness statements, and expert reports.
25 May 2026
Procedural Order No. 2 (Seat of the Arbitration)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Procedural Order No. 2 (Seat of the Arbitration)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
Vladimir Pavic
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
J. Christopher Thomas
Tribunal/Panel chair
Chair/President:
Dyalá Jiménez
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Nathan Gervais
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Netherlands
Document Summary
Procedural Order No. 2 (Seat of the Arbitration)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

In Procedural Order No. 2, the Arbitral Tribunal addressed the determination of the seat of the arbitration pursuant to Article 16(1) of the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Following the Parties' inability to reach an agreement on the seat, the Tribunal invited written submissions and convened a Case Management Conference to hear oral arguments. The Claimant subsequently requested a deferral of the decision, which the Respondent opposed. The Tribunal elected to proceed with the determination to ensure procedural stability.

Parties' Positions

The Claimant advocated for a functional assessment of the seat, emphasizing the need for a jurisdiction that would not allow unilateral economic sanctions to impede the fair resolution of the dispute. The Claimant opposed Switzerland, Singapore, and Barbados, proposing Hong Kong or, alternatively, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). The Respondent argued for established criteria, including judicial independence and arbitration experience, proposing Geneva, with Singapore and Barbados as alternatives. The Respondent strongly opposed Hong Kong and the DIFC, citing concerns over judicial independence, legal stability, and geopolitical alignments.

Tribunal's Analysis and Reasoning

The Tribunal agreed that the selection must consider both general arbitration-friendly characteristics and the specific circumstances of the case, notably the economic sanctions imposed against the Claimant. The Tribunal systematically excluded Panama and Stockholm based on the Parties' agreements, and Barbados due to its limited track record in treaty-based arbitration. Geneva was excluded because Switzerland had adopted sanctions similar to those at issue. Hong Kong was dismissed to preserve confidence in the arbitral process, given the Respondent's strong and pre-existing objections to its legal and institutional framework.

Comparing the remaining options of Singapore and the DIFC, the Tribunal acknowledged the Claimant's concerns regarding Singaporean courts' potential stance on economic sanctions and public policy. Conversely, it weighed the Respondent's concerns regarding the DIFC's legal stability and the absence of a host country agreement granting immunity. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the DIFC's neutral position on sanctions, combined with its geographical accessibility and infrastructure, made it the most appropriate seat. The Tribunal also emphasized that under Article 16(2) of the UNCITRAL Rules, the locale of the hearings remains distinct from the legal seat and can be determined at a later stage.

Decision

The Tribunal formally fixed the DIFC as the seat of the arbitration. Furthermore, acknowledging the broader geopolitical context, the Tribunal expressly reserved its authority to modify the seat as a measure of last resort should exceptional circumstances arise that could not otherwise be adequately addressed.