LATVIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Agita Sprūde and Valts Nerets, Sorainen
More recently, Latvian investors have targeted Nor- way over restrictions on snow crab harvesting in the Barents Sea, invoking the 1992 Latvia–Norway BIT. In Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v Kingdom of Norway (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11), registered in April 2020, the claimants challenged Norway’s fish- ing bans and licence denials as discriminatory and expropriatory, claiming over EUR10 million in losses from thwarted expeditions. The tribunal dismissed all claims on the merits in its 22 December 2023 award, prioritising Norway’s sovereign resource manage- ment under international law, including UNCLOS. As of October 2025, the claimants’ February 2024 annul- ment application remains pending, with memorials exchanged in early 2025 and a hearing scheduled for Q1 2026. A parallel claim, SIA Baltjura-Serviss v Kingdom of Norway (ICSID Case No. ARB/23/7), filed in March 2023 and raising similar allegations of FET breaches and market access denial, was discontinued in January 2024 pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 44, following a settlement or strategic withdrawal, with costs allocated accordingly. Collectively, these cases, spanning energy ( AMTO ), insurance ( Roščins ), banking ( Belokon ) and fisheries ( Pildegovics and Baltjura-Serviss ), demonstrate Lat- vian investors’ willingness to leverage ISDS for high- stakes disputes in diverse, often sensitive sectors. Yet, they also reveal persistent hurdles: jurisdictional pushback, modest success rates (with only partial or zero recoveries in decided matters) and enforcement pitfalls, as seen in annulments and discontinuities. In Eastern Partnership contexts like Ukraine and Mol- dova, where Latvian FDI focuses on infrastructure
and trade, such claims remain sporadic, potentially deterred by geopolitical instability and the ECT’s intra- bloc limitations post- Achmea . As Latvia’s outbound investments grow, particularly in renewables and logistics, investors may increasingly turn to reformed mechanisms like the MIC to mitigate these risks. At the same time, policymakers could enhance support through dedicated advisory units to navigate proce- dural complexities. Forward-looking perspectives: balancing security, solidarity and growth Latvia’s three-decade journey in investor–state arbi- tration reflects a nation balancing its aspirations for economic openness with the rigours of EU member- ship and the tremors of geopolitical upheaval. Latvia has cultivated a robust yet pragmatic framework for protecting FDI from the foundational ratification of the ICSID Convention and accession to the ECT in the late 1990s to an expansive BIT network tailored to its geographic and economic realities. In the future, Latvia will confront existential questions about how to shield outbound investors in “hos - tile” jurisdictions. Viable mechanisms persist, such as extra-EU BITs, ECT-provided sunsets until 2046, and EU free trade agreements. Inbound FDI protec- tion hinges on EU solidarity: sanctions fortify nation- al security yet risk chilling investor confidence. It is unlikely that national institutions like Latvia’s Court of Economic Matters, designated to hear investor–state disputes, could restore appeal, even if proven adept at FET applications.
154 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook