Tidal spölka z ograniczona odpowiedzialnoscia (Tidal Poland) v. Norway

At a glance

Parties

Tidal spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (Tidal Poland) v. the Kingdom of Norway

Forum and rules

Pre-arbitration notice under Article X of the BIT; the claimant said it would bring an ad hoc international arbitration

Treaty

Norway–Poland BIT of 5 June 1990

Sector

Music streaming

Outcome

Only the notice of dispute and Norway's reply are published. Norway said the notice was not a valid notification of a claim. The published documents do not show whether arbitration was ever started.

The dispute

Tidal Poland, a company incorporated in Poland and seated in Warsaw, owns all the shares of Tidal Music AS (Tidal Norway). It also has long-standing contracts with Tidal Norway. Tidal Poland complained about a criminal investigation of Tidal Norway by Økokrim, Norway's National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime. The investigation concerned alleged "data fraud" reported by an anonymous tipster. Tidal Poland said Økokrim searched Tidal Norway's premises illegally, called the company a "third party" so that it could not see the case file, put its trade secrets at risk, and leaked information to the press, harming the Tidal brand worldwide. It alleged breaches of equitable and reasonable treatment, most-favoured-nation treatment and the protection against expropriation. Norway answered that the BIT allows investor–State arbitration only for disputes over expropriation under Article VI, and that the investigation is plainly not an expropriation.

Key holdings

1. Tidal Poland notified Norway of its claims under Article X of the BIT. It offered to discuss an amicable settlement. If no solution was found within six months, it would submit the dispute to an ad hoc international arbitration tribunal and the courts of Norway. Notice of Dispute, p. 2
2. Norway's position was this. Criminal investigations in Norway are conducted by independent prosecuting authorities, and the Økokrim investigation was still ongoing. Under Article X, only disputes about Article VI (expropriation) may go to international arbitration. Response, p. 1
3. Norway also said the letter did not show any breach of Article VI. In its view, the letter of 1 April 2019 was therefore not a valid notification of a claim under Article X. Response, p. 2

Procedural history

1. 1 April 2019Quinn Emanuel, for Tidal Poland, sends the notice of dispute to Prime Minister Erna Solberg and Minister of Justice Jøran Kallmyr. The notice is stamped as received on 15 April 2019 and dated 16 April 2019 in the database.
2. 3 June 2019Norway's Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs) replies that the notice is not a valid notification of a claim because it does not concern expropriation under Article VI.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

For the claimant

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

For the respondent

Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), Norway

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Tidal
• music streaming
• Norway–Poland BIT
• Økokrim
• criminal investigation
• notice of dispute
• expropriation
• limited consent to arbitration
• Article VI
• equitable and reasonable treatment
• most-favoured-nation treatment
• search and seizure
• press leaks
• trade secrets
• data fraud

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.