Editing:

E.V. Kabatova, A.V. Grebelsky, E.A. Abrosimova (Ed.) Actual problems of Private International and Civil Law. Collection of Articles Following International Conferences. MGIMO-University, 2016. 254 p.

Chapters:

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Evidence in Arbitration’ in O. Skvortsov, M. Savransky, G. Sevastyanov (Ed.). International commercial arbitration: Textbook. 2nd ed. Statut Publishing, 2018. Р. 664.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘The end of an era? Fate of Investment Arbitration in Light of Attempts to Create an EU Investment Court System’ in A. Muranov (Ed.), V.Kabatov, S.Lebedev: In Memoriam. Collection of memoirs, articles, other materials. 2nd ed. Statut Publishing, 2017. P. 476.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Nationality of Investor as One of Conditions for the Investment Protection by Recipient State’ in E. Zavyalova, V. Kondratiev (Ed.), Corporate governance as a factor in increasing investment attractiveness. MGIMO Publishing, 2014. P. 265.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Distribution of Burden of Proof in International Arbitration’. in Issues of Private International, Comparative and Civil Law and International Commercial Arbitration: Liber Amicorum in Honor of A.Kostin, O.Zimenkova, N.Eliseev. Statute, 2013.

Articles:

A.V. Grebelsky ‘A Tool in the Hands of a Professional: Review of the Book “Guide to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration” by Roman Khodykin and Carol Mulcahy’. Commercial Arbitration, № 1 (3), 2020.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Regulating The Activities of International Law Firms in National Jurisdictions’. The Statute, 2018. Vol. 5. P. 164.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Disclosure of Documentary Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration’. Law and Economics, 2015. Vol. 8. P. 64.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Electronic Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration’. The Statute, 2015. Vol. 10. P. 59.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Witness Testimony in International Commercial Arbitration’. Economy and Law, 2015. Vol. 10. P. 73.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Experts Appointed by Arbitral Tribunals’. Arbitration Court, 2015. Vol. 6. P. 99.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Arbitrability of Corporate Disputes’. Russian Yearbook of International Law, 2013. P. 219.

A.V. Grebelsky ‘Actions of State Courts in Support of International Commercial Arbitration’. Bulletin of the State Registration Chamber under the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, 2013. Vol. 2. P. 12.

Selected experience of Alexander Grebelsky includes:

• Representing Russian shareholders of a Finnish fish processing company in an arbitration chaired by a Swedish arbitrator under the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce in Helsinki. The dispute arose from a share purchase agreement subordinate to Finnish law. The opponent’s claims were based on warranties made by the Russian party and an indemnity clause.
• Advising the Government of the Russian Federation and the largest domestic state corporation, including the assessment of a dispute resolution clause and the prospects for the execution of a judicial act, in a dispute on recovering a sovereign debt (held in Eurobonds) for a record amount.
• Representing a Russian chemical holding company in two arbitration proceedings under the Rules of ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation against suppliers of equipment and raw materials from China and South Korea. In both cases, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 1980 (Vienna Convention) was applicable. The award against the Chinese company required further recognition and was successfully recognized and enforced in Guangdong (China) despite the respondent’s resistance.
• Defending an Israeli company – a major cosmetics manufacturer – in a dispute with “Magnit” retail chain based on product quality claims. The dispute was considered under the Rules of ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation; Russian legislation was chosen as the applicable statute. Despite the significant volume of evidence provided by Claimant, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Israeli company. Attempts to further challenge the award in state courts have not been successful.
• Conducting the advocacy of shareholders in a limited liability company in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the case of invalidating the shareholders meeting decision. The dispute involved a question of the application of Joint Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court and the Supreme Court of December 9, 1999 No. 90/14 (Paragraph 24), according to which, in cases where the parties invoke in support of their claims or objections to the decision of the company’s shareholders general meeting, and the court has established that this decision was made with significant violations of the law (in violation of the competence of this body, in the absence of a quorum, etc.), the court must proceed from the fact that such a decision does not have legal power, regardless of whether it has been challenged by any of the members of the company or not, and to resolve a dispute, guided by the rule of law. As a result, the Supreme Court declared this provision not applicable in the case at hand.
• Advising a Russian group of companies from Ulyanovsk Region in the course of recognition and enforcement of an award of the Foreign Trade Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce of the Republic of Serbia made in favor of the Privatization Agency of the Republic of Serbia in connection with a violation of certain provisions of the investment contract by the Russian party.
• Defending a subsidiary of a leading Northern European fishing company headquartered in Denmark in the recovering the main debt and interest from the Chinese company for the delay in fulfilling obligation under CFR Contract (Incoterms 2000). The dispute was considered by the authoritative arbitral tribunal under the Rules of ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The General Terms of Delivery to and from the People’s Republic of China (1990) and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 1980 (Vienna Convention) were chosen by the arbitral tribunal as applicable statutes.
• Advising a group of companies – the largest Russian supplier of ingredients and packaging for the food industry – on the prospects of a dispute with a German company on the debt recovery under a DDU contract (Incoterms 2000), in connection with the failure of the German party to comply with the contract obligations. The dispute was subject to the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), the substantive law of Sweden was chosen as applicable by the parties.
• Representing an oil industry metalwork supplier (from the Chelyabinsk region) in a case against a major distributor of metal products and other equipment for industrial and energy facilities (Visaginas, Lithuania) initiated for the debt recovery under the supply of goods contract. The Respondent filed a counterclaim to recover damages caused by the delivery of law quality. The dispute was considered under the rules of the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation; as the applicable statute, the parties agreed on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 1980 (Vienna Convention) and, subsidiary, the Russian civil legislation.
• Representing Russian oil and gas company in arbitration proceedings held under the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) in Sweden. A dispute of more than 12 million euros was initiated by a Belgian counterparty of the client company and concerned the possible failure to fulfill the contract for the international sale of specialized equipment for the oil industry; law of Belgium was chosen as applicable. The arbitral tribunal included the leading Russian expert in the field of the energy law selected by the client side.
• Conducting the advocacy in numerous litigations in Russian state commercial courts on disputes over intellectual property rights and means of individualization, corporate disputes, bankruptcy cases, construction disputes, public procurement disputes, disputes arising from public field, especially with the participation of executive authorities of Moscow and the Moscow region.