Summary

I. INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES

1. This case concerns a dispute submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID" or the "Centre") on the basis of the Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Republic of Latvia on the Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments, which was signed on 16 June 1992 and entered into force on 1 December 1992 (the "BIT"),[1] and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which entered into force on 14 October 1966 (the "ICSID Convention").

2. The Claimants in this case are Staur Eiendom AS ("Staur"), EBO Invest AS ("EBO") and Rox Holding AS ("Rox"), which are all private limited liability companies incorporated under the laws of Norway (collectively referred to as the "Claimants"). Staur, EBO and Rox own 18%, 72% and 10%, respectively, of (SIA) Rixport, a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Latvia ("Rixport").[2]

3. The Respondent in this case is the Republic of Latvia ("Latvia" or the "Respondent").

4. The Claimants and the Respondent are collectively referred to as the "Parties." The Parties' representatives and their addresses are listed above on page (i).

5. As discussed further below, the arbitration concerns a dispute arising out of a project for the development of Riga International Airport in Latvia (the "Airport") and, more specifically, a number of Land Lease Agreements that Rixport entered into in November 2006 with a Latvian State-owned company, SJSC International Airport Riga ("SJSC Airport"). The Land Lease Agreements, which were the subject of subsequent amendments, provided for the development of four parcels of land adjacent to the Airport.

6. The Claimants initiated the arbitration on the basis that they made substantial investments through Rixport in connection with the Land Lease Agreements, but that the Respondent has through its actions effectively frustrated those investments and, in doing so, breached its obligations under Articles III and VI of the BIT on equitable and reasonable treatment and unlawful expropriation, respectively, as well as the umbrella clause that they contend has been incorporated in the BIT by virtue of the BIT's Most Favoured Nation ("MFN") clause.3

7. In addition to declaratory and other relief, the Claimants seek an order that the Respondent pay to the Claimants full reparation in accordance with the BIT and customary international law, in an amount that was initially quantified as "up to EUR 26 million,"4 but that evolved during the course of the arbitration, with the amount of EUR 41.9 million ultimately being claimed as compensation for the Claimants' alleged loss.5

...

VIII. AWARD

534. For the reasons set forth above, the Arbitral Tribunal hereby makes the following Award:

(i) the Tribunal has jurisdiction over all of the Parties to the arbitration, and all of the claims advanced by the Claimants;

(ii) the Claimants' claims against the Respondent for breach of the BIT are rejected;

(iii) the Claimants shall pay the Respondent EUR 2,612,937.42 and USD 329,497.21 in respect of the costs incurred by the Respondent for the arbitration; and

(iv) the Claimants shall pay interest to the Respondent on the sums awarded in (iii) above at a rate of 6% per year accruing as from the date of the dispatch to the Parties of this Award.

...

[1] Ex. C-1.

[2] Cl. Mem. ¶12.