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

ICS v. Argentina (II), Judgment of the Hague District Court, February 18, 2026

18 Feb 2026
ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited v. Argentine Republic (II), PCA Case No. 2015-12
View case details
Judgment of the Hague District Court (Dutch)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Hague District Court (Dutch)
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
Anette C. Bordes, Petra Dondorp, Irene A.M. Kroft
Claimant's counsel
Thomas Stouten
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Mirjam van de Hel-Koedoot
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
ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited, Argentina
Country
Netherlands
Print reporter
Document Summary
Judgment of the Hague District Court (Dutch)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This judgment, rendered by the District Court of The Hague, addresses an application by the Republic of Argentina to set aside an arbitral award and a preceding interim award on jurisdiction issued in favor of ICS Inspection and Control Services (ICS). The underlying arbitration was conducted pursuant to the 1990 United Kingdom-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). Argentina sought primary annulment based on the alleged lack of a valid arbitration agreement and subsidiary partial annulment concerning the tribunal's award of compound interest, alleging an excess of mandate and violations of public policy.

Jurisdictional Challenge

Argentina contended that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the underlying contract between ICS and Argentina contained an exclusive forum selection clause designating the Argentine federal courts, which purportedly superseded the BIT's arbitration offer. Applying a full standard of review to the jurisdictional question, the Court upheld the tribunal's competence. The Court affirmed the well-established distinction between contract claims and treaty claims, noting that ICS's claims were properly advanced under the BIT's umbrella clause. The Court concluded that the contractual forum selection clause did not explicitly exclude the investor's right to invoke the BIT's dispute resolution mechanism, thereby validating the formation of a binding arbitration agreement under international law.

Excess of Mandate and Public Policy

In its subsidiary claim, Argentina challenged the tribunal's award of 12.8% compound interest, arguing that the tribunal failed to apply Argentine law and that the resulting quantum was punitive, thereby violating Dutch public policy. The Court rejected these arguments, observing that the BIT permitted the application of international law to determine the appropriate reparation. The Court noted that the tribunal explicitly awarded the interest as compensatory damages to restore ICS to the position of an unsecured long-term lender to the State, rather than as a punitive measure. Emphasizing the strict limitations on judicial intervention in arbitral merits, the Court found no manifest violation of the tribunal's mandate or fundamental public policy.

Decision

The District Court of The Hague dismissed Argentina's application for annulment in its entirety. Furthermore, the Court ordered Argentina to bear the costs of the proceedings, enforceable with immediate effect.