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

Pildegovics and North Star v. Norway, Annulment Committee’s Decision on the Hearing and Advances on Costs, June 8, 2026

8 Jun 2026
Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11
Document provided by: ICSID
View case details
Annulment Committee’s Decision on the Hearing and Advances on Costs
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Annulment Committee’s Decision on the Hearing and Advances on Costs
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
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
Lucinda A. Low
ICSID Annulment Committee members
Maxi Scherer, Jacomijn van Haersolte-van Hof
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
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
Leah Waithira Njoroge
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Peteris Pildegovics, SIA North Star, Rosenthal Law Firm, Norway
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Annulment Committee’s Decision on the Hearing and Advances on Costs
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

In the annulment proceedings of Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11), the ad hoc Committee addressed the Applicants' urgent request concerning a USD 250,000 call for funds issued by ICSID. The Applicants sought to delay the payment deadline until after the scheduled hearing, requested a 50-50 reapportionment of the advance on costs, and proposed a remote hearing as an alternative to the planned in-person format in Paris.

Parties' Positions

The Applicants argued that severe financial distress, exacerbated by the global fuel crisis impacting the fisheries industry, justified the deferral and reapportionment. They further invoked EU and EEA legal principles regarding effective access to justice. The Respondent opposed the application, characterizing the Applicants as serial non-payers whose previous defaults had already caused two procedural suspensions and significant prejudice. The Respondent maintained that ICSID rules strictly allocate annulment costs to the applicant and disputed the relevance of the cited European judicial frameworks.

Committee's Analysis and Decision

To mitigate further expenses for all participants, the Committee first determined that the hearing would be conducted remotely rather than in person. Turning to the allocation of costs, the Committee denied the Applicants' request for reapportionment. The Committee emphasized that ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulation 15(5) explicitly places the sole financial responsibility for advance payments in annulment proceedings on the applicant, distinguishing this framework from the default 50-50 allocation applicable in initial arbitration proceedings.

Finally, regarding the request to defer the payment deadline, the Committee concluded it lacked the authority to grant such relief. The Committee noted that Article 44 of the ICSID Convention does not apply to the Centre's Administrative and Financial Regulations, thereby vesting the exclusive power to manage payment deadlines, issue default notices, and suspend proceedings for non-payment with the ICSID Secretary-General.