Rus | Eng
Arbitrators
Rubinina Evgeniya

Rubinina Evgeniya

Enyo Law LLP
evgeniya.rubinina@enyolaw.com
Address: 1 Tudor Street, London EC4Y 0AH
Download CV

General information

Russian Federation
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
London
Russian - fluent
English - fluent
French - fluent
Spanish - can read documents without translation

Career

Enyo Law LLP , London
partner
Russia
United Kingdom
United States (State of New York)

Experience as the tribunal’s secretary / assistant to the president of the tribunal

Secretary to the Tribunal in Gemplus S.A., SLP S.A., Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/3 (ICSID Additional Facility Rules, Washington DC seat, investment treaty claim under the France - Mexico and Argentina - Mexico BITs) and Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16 (ICSID Rules, investment treaty claim under the Austria - Ukraine BIT).

Experience as counsel

Acted as counsel for 11-15 years in international arbitrations
LCIA Rules
ICC Rules
SCC Rules
UNCITRAL Rules
ICSID Convention

Examples of cases

• Representing a state-owned oil company in an ICC arbitration with a Brazilian party in relation to the termination of a farm-out agreement, with a value of over US$1 bn (English law, Rio de Janeiro seat). • Representing a Russian banker in a London-seated ICC arbitration arising from a dispute with another Russian individual concerning the acquisition of a shareholding in an eastern European bank, as well as in related English court proceedings (English law, London seat). • Representing a consortium of regional and international energy companies in an LCIA arbitration against a regional government in the Middle East in relation to the ownership and commercial operation of two petroleum fields, with a value of over US$ 39 billion (English law, London seat). • Representing a Ukrainian businessman in an LCIA arbitration with another Ukrainian businessman arising out of a joint venture in the metals sector, with a value of over US$1 billion (English law, London seat). • Representing two Russian-owned businesses in LCIA arbitrations arising from a dispute under commercial loan agreements (English law, London seat). • Representing the government of Romania in the Micula v Romania ICSID arbitration concerning Romania’s repeal of customs duty exemptions in order to join the European Union.
quantum (damages) experts
petroleum engineering experts; local law experts; commodities pricing experts

General arbitration experience

London
Stockholm
Russian law
English law
international law
investment arbitration
commercial arbitration
investment arbitration
MJur (Oxon) with courses on international dispute settlement; MPhil (Oxon) with a focus on investment treaty arbitration
International Arbitration Court "Chamber of Arbitrators at the Union of Lawyers", Minsk, Belarus; GIAC, Georgia; VIAC

Education, qualifications, awards

Harvard Law School, LLM, 2009
University of Oxford, MPhil in Law, 2007
University of Oxford, MJur, 2006
MGIMO-University, specialist, Honors: highest honours, 2005
MGIMO-University, bachelor in law, Honors: highest honours, 2004
Included in the Legal 500’s London International Arbitration Powerlist (2019) Next Generation Lawyer for international arbitration in the UK, Legal 500 (2018 – 2020) Arbitration Future Leader by Who’s Who Legal (2020, 2021) Top Young Arbitration Practitioner, RAA40 (below-40 chapter of the Russian Arbitration Association) (2016 – 2018)
Member of the LCIA European Users’ Council Member of the Executive Committee of the Russia and CIS Commercial Arbitration Network (RCAN) Member of the working group on third-party funding in Russia-related disputes

Preferences as an arbitrator

available
IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration
Willing to waive travel costs in relation to arbitrations with a venue in Paris or Moscow
memorial
IBA Rules
fully electronic
Bockstiegel method (allocating an equal amount of time to each party with their freedom to use it as they wish between opening, examinations and closing)
no general preference
Maximum deference to the right to present the party’s case
5
Rigorous control of the process by the tribunal
If it is a legal issue or an important factual issue
It is only for parties to decide and arbitrators should focus on resolution of the dispute

Personal preferences

War and Peace
To Kill a Mockingbird
hiking
blinis with caviar