Samoylov Evgeny

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

esamoylov@debevoise.com

General information

Citizenship:

Russian Federation

City:

Moscow

Languages:

Russian - fluent

English - fluent

Career

2014 - 2021

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP , Moscow

International Counsel

Qualified to practice law in:

Russia

Experience as counsel

Acted as counsel for 5-10 years in domestic and international arbitrations

Arbitration Rules:

ICAC Rules

LCIA Rules

SCC Rules

ICSID Convention

Examples of cases

Russian investment company vs Russian individual, corporate dispute with respect to a manufacturing group, London seat, Russian law, LCIA Rules. Russian steel company vs Austrian engineering company, delays with the supply of the project documentation and production equipment, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, SCC Rules. Russian sole entrepreneur vs German manufacturer of medical and hygienic product, recovery of debt and losses incurred under an agency agreement relating to the construction of a factory in Russia, Moscow seat, Russian law, ICAC Rules.

In 2 or more cases had direct responsibility for instructing and liaison with

construction experts

Russian law experts

General arbitration experience

Has been involved as counsel in arbitration seated in:

Moscow

Stockholm

London

Has been involved in arbitrations where the applicable substantive law was:

Russian law

English law

Swedish law

Has been involved as counsel in:

сonstruction arbitrations

commercial arbitration

investment arbitration

Arbitration specific trainings/qualifications:

Education, qualifications, awards

Professional education:

Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU), Ph.D., 2010, Department of Civil Law, Faculty of Law

Positions (current and former) in arbitration community bodies / working groups / as law professor

Assistant Professor of the Department of Civil Law, Faculty of Law of Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU), 2010-2021.

Preferences as an arbitrator

Pre-appointment interview

available

Written submissions style

no general preference

Production of documents (general approach):

no general preference

Written submissions and bundles:

no general preference

Allocation of time during an oral hearing:

no general preference

Using PowerPoint in oral presentations:

no general preference

Party's right to present its case

Maximum deference to the right to present the party’s case

Rigorous control of the process by the tribunal

To what extent should arbitrators raise issues that have not been directly addressed by the relevant party but have been identified by the arbitrators

If it is a legal issue or an important factual issue

Approach to encouraging parties to amicably resolving dispute

It is only for parties to decide and arbitrators should focus on resolution of the dispute