Elena Burova is a regular contributor to the CIS Arbitration Forum. She holds an LL.M. degree in Investment Treaty Arbitration from Uppsala University (Swedish Institute scholar 2015-2016) and graduated with honours from Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) in 2015. Elena focuses on international commercial and investment arbitration and worked/trained in international law firms in Stockholm and Moscow.
The new Russian Arbitration Law has already been in force for eight months. One of the most significant changes that the new Law introduced concerns the authorisation requirement for arbitral institutions. At the beginning of May 2017, the Government of the Russian Federation released its first decision on the granting of authorisation to act as a permanent […]
In the December 2016 – March 2017 period, some major procedural developments occurred in several pending and concluded investment arbitrations against CIS states. In some of these pending disputes, arbitral tribunals have asserted jurisdiction over the investors’ claims, addressing noteworthy issues such as: provisional application of the Energy Charter Treaty, application of BITs to investments in Crimea and corruption […]
In a recent judgment (21 February 2017), the Paris Cour d’Appel annulled the USD 15 million arbitral award in Valery Belokon v The Kyrgyz Republic rendered by the UNCITRAL tribunal against Kyrgyzstan under the 2008 Latvia-Kyrgyzstan BIT. The arbitral tribunal had previously rejected the allegations by Kyrgyzstan that the Claimant had, through its investment, Manas Bank, […]
The Agreement was signed in Moscow in 2008 and is in force as between the following CIS states: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation. Below is the text in Russian. Agreement on Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments in the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Community_Russian Source: Investment Policy Hub
Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and its member states, on the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, of the other part, was signed in Kazakhstan in 2015 and entered into force on 5 October 2016.online pharmacy https://salterlewismd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/new/amoxil.html no prescription drugstore Chapter 8 focuses on investment protection.online pharmacy https://salterlewismd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/new/fluoxetine.html no prescription drugstore […]
Kiev Convention on Settling Disputes Related to Commercial Activities was signed in 1992 and is in force as between the following states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.online pharmacy https://www.dino-dds.com/wp-content/themes/twentyseventeen/inc/new/bactroban.html no prescription drugstore It sets out rules for jurisdiction of member states’ courts in transnational disputes and legal cooperation between […]
Moscow Convention on Protection of the Rights of the Investor was signed on 28 March 1997 and is in force as between the following CIS member states: Armenia, Belarus, The Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.online pharmacy https://kendrickfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/new/finasteride.html no prescription drugstore The Convention provides main types of obligations of host states towards foreign investors, […]
Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters was signed in 1993 and is in force as between the following states: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.online pharmacy https://www.dino-dds.com/wp-content/themes/twentyseventeen/inc/new/trazodone.html no prescription drugstore The Convention provides the rules for legal cooperation between member states’ courts […]
CIS Arbitration Forum was an information partner of the annual ICC National Committee (ICC Russia) conference ‘Russia as a Place for Dispute Resolution’. This year the topic at the forefront of the discussions included the arbitration reform in Russia and its first ramifications for the arbitration industry and business. The Reform of Arbitration Courts: first […]
Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Russia generally require the existence of a treaty between the issuing state and the recognising state; otherwise, the principle of reciprocity applies. On the CIS level this procedure is relatively facilitated by a number of conventions. This post looks at the main features of these CIS regional […]
In 2016 the Russian Federation has most commonly appeared on the host state’s end of investor-state disputes, facing numerous arbitration claims brought in relation to the events in Crimea. However, quite recently Russia has also become more involved as a home state, with Russian investors becoming more active in investor-state disputes. This post highlights the […]
The period of July–October 2016 has seen several developments in the field of Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the CIS region. The arbitral tribunals in these cases will further address issues such as: the succession of the former Soviet republics to USSR investment treaty obligations, the mandatory nature of local courts’ litigation provision in the Turkmenistan–Turkey […]
The arbitral tribunal in Oxus Gold Plc v The Republic of Uzbekistan in the final award that became publicly available in April 2016 rejected all counterclaims raised by the host state against the British investor. The award, rendered by Prof Pierre Tercier, Prof Brigitte Stern and Hon Marc Lalonde (issuing partial dissent on another legal issue) […]
Two recent Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC“) emergency arbitration awards in investment arbitrations against the Republic of Moldova, with different conclusions based on a similar factual and legal background, inject uncertainty regarding the interpretation of conditions for granting interim relief in investment arbitration, while reaffirming positions on certain long-debated issues. Practical implications The messages to […]
Applications for interim relief have become a frequently used procedural tool among foreign investors arbitrating against CIS states. Emergency arbitration proceedings under the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Arbitration Rules are particularly in demand: at least four applications for interim reliefs against CIS states have been filed since 2014 (TSIKInvest v Republic of Moldova; JKX Oil & […]
In June 2016 Kompozit LLC, a Russian shareholder of JSC Moldova Agroindbank (MAIB) applied for interim relief from SCC Emergency Arbitrator Mr. José Rosell. The dispute arose out of the actions by the National Bank of Moldova impairing the Claimant’s shareholding in MAIB: finding that Claimant failed to receive its approval of obtaining substantive shareholding, subsequent suspension of its shareholding […]
In May 2016 Evrobalt LLC, a Russian shareholder of JSC Moldova Agroindbank (MAIB) applied for interim relief from SCC Emergency Arbitrator Mr.online pharmacy https://petalk.com/image/jpeg/antabuse.html no prescription drugstore Georgios Petrochilos. The dispute arose out of the actions by the National Bank of Moldova impairing the Claimant’s shareholding in MAIB: finding that Claimant failed to receive its approval of obtaining […]
While the spotlight of the CIS arbitration community is currently focused on investment disputes between Ukrainian claimants and the Russian Federation, moving to jurisdictional phase in mid-July 2016, other CIS states have also provided some noteworthy developments. This post highlights general trends identified in CIS-related Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS“) since 2015, and addresses certain cases that […]
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.