Paschalis Paschalidis is a senior associate in the International Arbitration and Public International Law practices.

Paschalis represents and advises companies and States in international arbitrations conducted under the auspices of a variety of rules, including ICSID, SCC, ICC and UNCITRAL Rules. His practice focuses on commercial and investment disputes with a European Union law nexus.

From 2012 to 2018, Paschalis served as a référendaire at the Court of Justice of the European Union, where he assisted First Advocate General Melchior Wathelet in a variety of cases raising questions of international law and arbitration, State aid, EU sanctions and restrictive measures, direct taxation and VAT, intellectual property law, fisheries and law of the sea, private international law, equal treatment at work and protection against discrimination, EU fundamental freedoms and citizenship rights as well as EU institutional law.

International arbitrations on which Paschalis Paschalidis has worked include the representation of:

• The Arab Republic of Egypt, Respondent in an ICSID arbitration brought against it by Tantalum International, Ltd. and Emerge Gaming, Ltd. (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/22). The dispute arises from a mining enterprise and the claims are brought under the Egypt-Australia bilateral investment treaty.
• The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Respondent in an ICSID arbitration initiated by Société des Parcs d’Alger and Emirates International Investment Company LLC (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/11). The dispute arises from a contract for the development of a $5 billion urban park project.
• The Republic of Lithuania in arbitration proceedings commenced by Russian State-owned gas company Gazprom in relation to Lithuania’s unbundling of gas transmission from gas production and supply in the Lithuanian gas distribution company Lietuvos Dujos, in compliance with the EU Third Energy Package and in particular Directive (EC) 2009/73.The proceedings were brought under the 1999 Lithuania-Russia BIT and were conducted under the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
• The majority shareholders in the former Yukos Oil Company, Claimants in a series of three UNCITRAL arbitrations in The Hague against the Russian Federation in relation to the expropriation of their investment in the company. The claims were brought under the Energy Charter Treaty.The Tribunal ordered the Russian Federation to pay over $50 billion in damages to our clients, the largest award ever rendered by an arbitral tribunal.The Tribunal also ordered the Respondent to reimburse to our clients 75% of the legal fees they had incurred in these proceedings, as well as 100% of the arbitration costs.
• TNK-BP in a dispute with BP regarding TNK-BP’s lost participation in an Arctic exploration project. The amount at stake in the dispute was estimated between $5 and 10 billion.
• A French-German consortium in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over €6.1 billion was at stake.
• An international agribusiness conglomerate, Respondent in a UNCITRAL arbitration in London in a joint venture dispute involving claims for cost overruns and delays in a four year construction project, valued at over $135 million. The facility at issue was located in Ukraine.
• Electricité de France (EDF), Claimant in a UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Hungary. The dispute arose out of the termination, by Hungary, of a long-term Power Purchase Agreement in compliance with European Commission Decision No. 2009/609/EC. The claims were brought under the Energy Charter Treaty and the arbitration was conducted in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules.

Other matters

• Administrative Secretary to an arbitral tribunal in a commercial arbitration under the ICC Rules.

Professional Affiliations

• Member of the Board, Luxembourg Arbitration Association (LAA)
• Visiting Lecturer, Executive M.B.L.-HSG, University of St. Gallen (2017)
• Member, ICC Young Arbitrators Forum (ICC YAF)

Publications

Books

• L’Europe au present! Liber Amicorum Melchior Wathelet (Bruylant, 2018) (co-editor)
• Freedom of Establishment and Private International Law for Corporations (OUP, 2012)

Articles

• “CETA : une nouvelle ère pour la protection des investissements [CETA: a new era for investment protection],” Journal de droit européen, No. 260, at 241 (July/Aug. 2019)
• “Issues of compatibility arising from the application of international investment law and arbitration in the area of EU state aid law,” in International Investment Law and Competition (K. Fach Gómez, A. Gourgourinis, C. Titi eds., Springer, 2020) (forthcoming)
• “Asylum Policy: a Measure of EU’s Fidelity to its History and Values,” in What market, what society, what Union? The Treaty of Amsterdam and the European thought of Francisco Lucas Pires (M. Lucas Pires ed., Asser Press, 2019) (forthcoming)
• “Case management at the Court of Justice of the European Union,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (forthcoming)
• “Challenges under EU Law to the enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention,” in 60 Years of the New York Convention: Key Issues and Future Challenges 219 (K. Fach Gómez & A.M. López Rodríguez eds., Kluwer, 2019)
• “International investment law and arbitration confronted with EU law: are there systemic conflicts and incompatibilities?,” in EU Law and International Investment Arbitration, IAI International Arbitration Series No. 11, at 5 (H. Ruiz Fabri & E. Gaillard eds., Juris, 2018)
• “Arbitral tribunals and preliminary references to the EU Court of Justice,” 33(4) Arbitration International 663 (2017)
• “The Future of Anti-Suit Injunctions in Support of Arbitration After the EU Court of Justice’s Judgment in the Gazprom Case,” 34(2) Journal of International Arbitration 333
• “Commentaire sur l’avis 2/15 (Accord de libre-échange avec Singapour), du 16 mai 2017 (EU:C:2017:376) rendu par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne [Comment on Opinion 2/15 (Free Trade Agreement with Singapore), of 16 May 2017 (EU:C:2017:376) rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union] ”, 2017(3) Cahiers de l’arbitrage / Paris Journal of International Arbitration 473
• “Case C-567/14 Genentech: EU law confronted with international arbitration,” 5(1) European International Arbitration Review 59 (2016)
• Research Assistant, New York Convention Guide Project (www.newyorkconvention1958.org)
• “What Did Iniuria in the Lex Aquilia Actually Mean?,” 55 Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité 321 (2008)

Case notes

• Case C-621/18, Wightman and Others, International Law Reports (forthcoming)
• Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, International Law Reports (forthcoming)
• Case C-284/16, Achmea, 181 International Law Reports 175 (2019)
• Case C-266/16, Western Sahara Campaign UK, 181 International Law Reports 288 (2019)

Speaking Engagements

• “Latest Developments in Investment Arbitration in Europe,” Luxembourg Arbitration Day, Luxembourg, 26 April 2019
• “Oxford Style Debate: The safeguard of international European and domestic mandatory rules by arbitral tribunals – practical implications,” 3^rd ICC European Conference, Paris, 1 April 2019
• “EU Investment Law,” Seminar organized by CERSA, Research Centre of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and the University Paris II Panthéon-Assas on Topical Issues in Investment Law & Investor-State Dispute Resolution, Paris, 7 February 2019
• “Complaints, National Courts and Arbitrators: Increased Role in an Era that the Commission is ‘Big on Big and Small on Small’?,” Autumn Conference on European State Aid Law 2018, Brussels, 30 November 2018
• “Courts or Tribunals? The Internationalization of Dispute Resolution in Europe and the Case Law of the ECJ,” Conference organized by Queen Mary University of London, Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre and Hamad Bin Khalifa University on “The Promise of Hybrid Dispute Resolution Fora,” Doha, 19 November 2018
• “What are the implications of Achmea for investor-state dispute settlement under the Energy Charter Treaty?,” Conference organized by European University Institute, Dechert LLP, École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Paris on What is the Impact of the Achmea Judgment on Investment and Dispute Settlement in the EU Energy Sector?, Paris, 16 November 2018
• “EU State Aid Law and Investment Arbitration,” Conference organized by Stockholm Centre for Commercial Law and Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law on The Future of Arbitration in Europe, Stockholm, 26 October 2018
• “The future of investment arbitration – where do things go from here?,” 2nd Annual GAR Live, Vienna, 19 October 2018
• “The legality of economic activities in occupied territories under European Union Law,” Workshop organized by Asser Institute on the International Legality of Economic Activities in Occupied Territories, The Hague, 17 October 2018
• “The (In)Compatibility of International Investment Law and Arbitration with EU State Aid Law,” Colloquium organized by Universitiy of Zaragoza, University of Athens and University Paris II on International Investment Law and Competition Law, Zaragoza, 28 September 2018
• “The future of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration in the Aftermath of the Achmea Judgment,” Paris Arbitration Week 2018, Paris, 11 April 2018
• “EU Law Challenges to the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards,” International Conference by UNCITRAL, University Loyola Andalucia, University of Zaragoza and Club Español del Arbitraje on the 60 Years of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Key Issues and Future Challenges, Seville, 6 April 2018
• “Anti-suit injunctions: Are they back on the menu following the Gazprom case?,” Dublin International Arbitration Day 2015, Dublin, 6 November 2015