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

Fridman v. Netherlands, Notice of Arbitration, March 26, 2025

26 Mar 2025
Mikhail Maratovich Fridman v. Kingdom of the Netherlands,  PCA Case No. 2026-30
View case details
Notice of Arbitration
Document Details:
LISTED 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
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
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Twenty Essex, Brick Court Chambers, Gherson Solicitors, Omnia Strategy, Kiejman & Marembert, Netherlands
Country
Print reporter
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.