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

Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, Decision on Request for Admissibility of New Evidence

16 Jul 2025
Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11
Document provided by: ICSID
View case details
Decision on Request for Admissibility of New Evidence
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Decision on Request for Admissibility of New Evidence
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
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Vaughan Lowe, Alain Pellet, Mubarak Waseem, Essex Court Chambers, Ysam Soualhi, Kristian Jervell, Martin Sørby, Fredrik Bergsjø, Kristina K. Nygård, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway
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, Norway
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Decision on Request for Admissibility of New Evidence
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Decision on the Admission of Evidence

This document is a letter from the Secretary of the ad hoc Committee in the annulment proceeding of ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11. It communicates the Committee's decision regarding the Applicants' request to admit new exhibits (A-0206 to A-0224) into the record, pursuant to section 15.5 of Procedural Order No. 1, which requires a showing of special circumstances.

The Applicants sought to admit documents produced by the Respondent during document production (A-0206 to A-0221), lists of those documents (A-0222 to A-0223), and the LinkedIn profile of the Respondent's lead counsel (A-0224), which they argued supported a claim of inequality of the parties. The Respondent did not oppose the admission of the first set of documents, provided the Committee found special circumstances, but objected to the Applicants' rationale for admitting the LinkedIn profile.

The Committee ruled to admit Exhibits A-0206 to A-0223, finding that they presented special circumstances justifying their inclusion in the annulment record. However, the Committee denied the admission of Exhibit A-0224. The Committee reasoned that the LinkedIn profile is a publicly available document that was presumably accessible to the Applicants previously, and that the Applicants had failed to demonstrate sufficient special circumstances to warrant its admission at this stage of the proceeding.