Russian billionaire seeks damages from Netherlands over sanctions-driven bank collapse
Mikhail Fridman, a Russian billionaire, has taken the Netherlands to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. He demands compensation for the bankruptcy of his Amsterdam Trade Bank and the return of control over assets, including Holland & Barrett, Follow the Money reports. Fridman reportedly holds both Russian and Israeli citizenship
Fridman, who paid 1.8 billion British pounds, which is about 2 billion euros, for Holland & Barrett, lost control of his holdings after European Union sanctions targeted him and other Russian billionaires. Those investments were held through companies based in Amsterdam’s Zuidas financial district and also included stakes in Russian supermarket chain X5 and telecom operator Veon (formerly Vimpelcom), which operates in Bangladesh, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Russia.
In addition to restoring control, Fridman is demanding unspecified damages. He alleges that the Dutch central bank, De Nederlandsche Bank, launched a harassment campaign against Amsterdam Trade Bank after the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The bank later collapsed under sanctions imposed after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration, established in 1899 to resolve disputes involving states, is the venue Fridman has chosen. He bases the claim on a 1989 bilateral investment treaty between the Netherlands and the former Soviet Union. Court documents show he first notified the Dutch government of the potential claim in March 2025.
Fridman is pursuing parallel cases elsewhere. At the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in Washington, the World Bank’s arbitration arm, he is seeking 1 billion dollars from Ukraine over the nationalization of a bank.
According to the Russian newspaper Vedomosti, he filed a $16 billion arbitration claim against Luxembourg in 2024 at a tribunal in Hong Kong. In November 2025 he opened an arbitration proceeding against the United Kingdom; further details of that case have not been made public.
Lawyer Heleen over de Linden, who specializes in Russia and sanctions, said the outcomes remain difficult to predict. “The Court of Justice in Luxembourg already ruled in 2009 that the bilateral investment treaties are not compatible with the EU sanctions. The EU has even called for terminating the total of 41 bilateral investment treaties. This has not happened for various reasons.”
The EU Council, which imposed the sanctions, has begun adding tailored provisions intended to make such claims harder to win, over de Linden said. “The Council is introducing tailor-made provisions that make it more difficult to have a claim awarded. One can ask whether this is not in conflict with the principle of legal certainty.”
She described the Hong Kong case as potentially the most significant. “Because it concerns the alleged incompatibility of bilateral investment treaties with EU sanctions, it is obvious that the claimants want the arbitration to take place outside the EU, the UK and the US. Often a relatively well-functioning legal system in Asia is then chosen.”
“If an arbitration court in Asia awards the claim and thereby lets provisions from the bilateral investment treaties prevail over the EU sanctions, this means there is a judgment that can be enforced in third countries and in Russia. In the EU that will quickly run into the meanwhile very extensive no-claim clause.”
An EU country is unlikely to pay compensation quickly, over de Linden added. “A recent addition in the sanctions regulations is that that would be contrary to public order. This is a very broad concept that, in any case, also includes acting in violation of the EU sanctions.”
