GBS Disputes

EXPERIENCE INCLUDES REPRESENTATION OF:

Arbitration proceedings

Investment arbitration

• The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, in a UNCITRAL arbitration brought by the Egyptian companies Qalaa Holdings S.A.E. and ASEC Cement S.A.E under the Algeria-Egypt bilateral investment treaty. The dispute related to alleged breaches of the State’s obligations under the treaty in relation to two cement production projects in Algeria.
• The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria in an investment treaty arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules brought by a car manufacturer. The claims are brought under a bilateral investment treaty and concern losses allegedly suffered due to measures adopted by the Algerian Government.
• Port operator Togo Terminal, Claimant in an ICSID arbitration brought against the Republic of Togo (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/16). The dispute related to a concession agreement.
• The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Respondent in an ICSID arbitration initiated by Orascom TMT Investments S.à.r.l. (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/35). The dispute related to alleged breaches of the State’s obligations under the bilateral investment treaty between Algeria and the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union in relation to the operation of a mobile telephone company in Algeria. The USD 4 billion claim brought against our client was dismissed in its entirety.
• The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Respondent in a UNCITRAL arbitration initiated by Global Telecom Holding SAE (formerly known as Orascom Telecom Holding) under the Algeria-Egypt bilateral investment treaty. The dispute concerned alleged breaches of the State’s obligations under the treaty in relation to the operation of a mobile telephone company in Algeria. Over USD 16 billion was at stake.
• Ukraine, Respondent in a UNCITRAL arbitration brought by PJSC Gazprom. The dispute related to the enforcement of a fine issued by the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine in relation to Gazprom’s breaches of Ukraine’s Competition Law in the performance of a gas transit contract. The claims were brought under the Ukraine-Russian Federation bilateral investment treaty.
• The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Respondent in an ICSID arbitration initiated by Mærsk Olie, Algeriet A/S (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/14) under the Algeria-Denmark bilateral investment treaty. The dispute related to alleged breaches of the State’s obligations under the treaty in relation to windfall profit tax in the context of a production-sharing contract. Over USD 3 billion was at stake.

Commercial arbitration

• A European contractor in an ICC arbitration in Paris initiated against a major international oil company. The dispute arises from an Engineering, Procurement, Supply, Construction and Commissioning (EPSCC) contract for facilities associated with an oil exploration project. The law of our client’s State applies.
• An African national oil and gas company, Claimant in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Geneva brought against two privately-owned European energy companies. The dispute arose from the termination of a production-sharing contract. The law of the Claimant’s State applies. Over USD 2.4 billion is at stake.
• An international logistics company in an ICC arbitration in Paris brought against the Port Authority of an African State. The dispute arises from a concession agreement related to the management and operation of a container terminal.
• An African transportation company in a UNCITRAL arbitration against an Asian equipment manufacturer. The dispute arose from an agreement for the supply of passenger trailers. The law of the Claimant’s State applied.
• An international logistics company and port operator in two ad hoc arbitrations arising from the breach of a concession agreement and a framework agreement. The first arbitration was brought against the port authority of an African State. The second arbitration was brought against the same port authority and the State.
• Sonatrach, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Geneva initiated by Spanish company Repsol and its Asian partners in relation to the performance of a production-sharing agreement. Algerian law applied.
• An African State-owned company, Respondent in an ICC arbitration brought by an Asia Pacific mining company. The dispute arose from a joint venture agreement for the development of a mine to exploit a zinc deposit. The law of the Respondent’s State applied.
• Sonatrach, Respondent in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Geneva initiated by Anadarko Algeria Co. LLC and Maersk Olie, Algeriet AS. The dispute was in relation to the interpretation of contractual provisions regarding windfall profit tax and tax stabilization provisions in the context of a production-sharing contract. Over 11 billion U.S. dollars was at stake.
• A European pharmaceutical company as Claimant in an ICC arbitration in Paris against three subsidiaries of a global health care company. The dispute arose from a Manufacturing Right Purchase and License Agreement. French law applied.
• Two entities of a major beverage company as Claimant in an ICC arbitration in Paris against a service provider. The dispute arose from a supply agreement. French law applied and the language of the proceedings was French.
• A major fertilizer producer as Claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against an Asian conglomerate. The dispute arose from the breach of a sales contract. English law applied.
• An African State-owned energy producer in conciliation proceedings with a major North American energy company. The dispute was in relation to the adoption by the host State of new tax legislation (windfall profit tax).

Enforcement and setting aside proceedings

Setting aside proceedings

• Heirs to the Sultan of Sulu as Respondents in proceedings initiated by the State of Malaysia before the Paris Court of Appeal to set aside a USD 15 billion award rendered in a contractual dispute.
• The majority shareholders in the former Yukos Oil Company as Respondents in proceedings initiated by the Russian Federation before Dutch courts to set aside the USD 50 billion awards rendered in the arbitrations brought by the shareholders against the Russian Federation concerning the expropriation of their investments in Yukos.
• An international logistics company, Respondent in setting aside proceedings initiated by the Port Authority of an African State to set aside three ICC awards rendered in a dispute arising out a concession agreement related to the management and operation of a container terminal.
• Two European companies, Respondents in proceedings initiated by a European State before the Paris Court of Appeal to set aside a UNCITRAL award rendered in an arbitration administered by the PCA under an intra-EU bilateral investment treaty.
• A North American mining company, Applicant in proceedings initiated before the Paris Court of Appeal to set aside an ICC award rendered in a mining dispute against a U.S. subsidiary of a Russian company.
• An Asian company in the environmental technology and services, Respondent in proceedings initiated by a Middle Eastern State before the Paris Court of Appeal to partially set aside an ICC arbitral award rendered in a construction dispute.
• An agency of an Eastern European State, Applicant in proceedings initiated before the Paris Court of Appeal to set aside ICC awards rendered in a construction dispute.
• An international tobacco company as Applicant in proceedings initiated before the Paris Court of Appeal to set aside an ICC award rendered in a dispute arising out of the performance of a joint venture and license agreement executed between two international tobacco companies.

Enforcement

• The majority shareholders in the former Yukos Oil Company in proceedings initiated in multiple jurisdictions to seek the recognition and enforcement of the USD 50 billion awards rendered in the arbitrations brought by the shareholders against the Russian Federation concerning the expropriation of their investments in Yukos.
• Heirs to the Sultan of Sulu in proceedings initiated in France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands to recognize and enforce a USD 15 billion award rendered in an ad hoc arbitration brought by our clients. We are also coordinating our clients’ global enforcement efforts in other jurisdictions.
• A shareholder of a State-owned South American company in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award in France against a South American State.
• An international logistics company in proceedings before Cameroonians courts to seek recognition and enforcement of an ICC award rendered against the Port Authority of an African State.
• An African national company in proceedings initiated before several French courts to challenge enforcement measures conducted against our client pursuant to an arbitral award rendered in an arbitration arising from a contract for a natural gas distribution project in Africa.
• A Latin American State-owned entity in proceedings before French courts related to the attachment of its bank accounts by a creditor of the State.
• Ukraine, Respondent in a UNCITRAL arbitration brought by PJSC Gazprom in a dispute concerning the enforcement of a fine issued by the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine in relation to Gazprom’s breaches of Ukraine’s Competition Law in the performance of a gas transit contract. The matter involved the coordination of the global strategy to enforce the fine in multiple jurisdictions.
• Viorel Micula in proceedings for the recognition in France of an award rendered in an investment arbitration.
• The subsidiary of a Middle Eastern conglomerate in proceedings before Bangladeshi courts to enforce an award rendered in an ICC arbitration.

Commercial litigation

• A European aircraft manufacturer in a dispute before French commercial courts against a technical services supplier. French law applies.
• A European aircraft manufacturer in a dispute before French commercial courts against a component supplier. The dispute arises from the termination of their commercial relationship. French law applies.
• A Middle Eastern public authority in a tort liability dispute initiated by businessmen claiming damages for alleged financial losses valued several billion U.S. dollars. French and Turkish law apply.
• A French oil and gas exploration and production company in a contractual dispute with an insurance company. French law applies.
• A French global specialist in energy management in a dispute before French commercial courts. The dispute arose from the distribution of dividends. French law applies.
• A French company in the nuclear sector in a dispute before the French Courts. The dispute arose from the cancellation of the employees’ savings plan.

Advisory work

• Advising a mining company affiliated to a prominent sovereign wealth fund in relation to a multi-billion-dollar refinery project in Africa. This high-stakes engagement involved navigating complex legal issues common in mining disputes, including tax and customs regimes, reassessments of royalties, stabilization clauses, and economic equilibrium clauses.
• Advising a subsidiary of a Middle Eastern investor in settlement discussions and further negotiations with the Government of an African State regarding tax and royalties sought to be levied in breach of a stabilisation clause, in the context of a long-term contract for the exploitation of a mine.

Education

• Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales – Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas, CRA Certificat de recherches approfondies
• Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas, E.A. in Public International Law (hons)
• Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas, Maîtrise in Public International Law (hons)

Admissions & Courts

• Paris

• “Benjamin is a brilliant advocate. He is extremely hard working and sharp. Clearly a leader in the field. One of the few who manages to master arbitration and domestic litigation intricacies.” – Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration 2023
• “Benjamin Siino enters the rankings this year following strong market endorsements. He handles cases under the UNCITRAL and ICSID rules and is described by sources as “intelligent and friendly.” Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration 2022
• “Benjamin Siino ‘is among the best of his generation”. He ‘masters every detail of a case – he is exceptionally smart and very strategic’. He ‘successfully deals with extremely urgent and stressful situations’.” – Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration – Future Leaders 2021
• “Benjamin Siino has ‘great advocacy skills’ compliment respondents who consider him ‘one of the best French experts in enforcement of arbitral awards’.” – Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration – Future Leaders 2020
• “Benjamin Siino is a ‘top choice for clients’ who commend his ‘impressive submissions and performance at hearing’. Peers note that ‘he is the most knowledgeable lawyer of our generation in respect of enforcement and setting aside proceedings’.” – Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration – Future Leaders 2019

Languages

• French
• English
• Italian
• Spanish

Nationality

• French

• Member, Comité Français de l’Arbitrage (CFA)
• Co-President, Paris Arbitration Week
• Member, International Arbitration Institute (IAI)
• Member, LCIA European Users’ Council

Teachings

• Lecturer on Arbitration, Certificat d’université Pratique de l’arbitrage (Université Paris-Saclay) (2023-)
• Lecturer on Enforcement, MACI (Université Paris-Saclay) (2018-)
• Lecturer on The New York Convention, International Academy for Arbitration Law (“Arbitration Academy”) (2018-)
• Lecturer on Arbitral awards and enforcement, M2 (Université Paris I Sorbonne (2023-)
• Lecturer on International arbitration, SciencesPo Law School (2024-)

• Research Assistant and Co-Team Leader, New York Convention Guide Project (newyorkconvention1958.org), a project developed in cooperation with UNCITRAL and Columbia University on the implementation of the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (aka the “1958 New York Convention”), with a view to promoting its uniform application around the world.
• Co-editor, The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards (GAR publication, 3rd ed. 2023)
• “Arbitrating in France,” International Arbitration Institute, 2023 (co-author)
• “Enforcement under the New York Convention,” in The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards 86 (G. Kaiser and B. Siino eds., GAR publication, 2023) (co-author)
• “La langue de procédure en matière d’arbitrage international,” in La langue du procès international – Questions de justice linguistique, Cahiers Européens, Pedone, 2022
• “Arbitrage et compliance : au cœur de la lutte contre la corruption en matière civile et commerciale [Arbitration and compliance: two systems at the heart of the fight against corruption],” 2019(6) Revue Internationale de la Compliance et de l’Ethique des Affaires 7 (December 2019) (co-author)
• “L’immunité d’exécution dans la Loi Sapin II après l’arrêt Commisimpex du 10 janvier 2018 [Immunity from execution and the Sapin II Law after the 10 January 2018 decision in Commisimpex],” 2018(1) Cahiers de l’Arbitrage / Paris Journal of International Arbitration 65 (co-author)
• “L’efficacité de la convention de New York de 1958 [The efficiency of the 1958 New York Convention],” in L’exécution des sentences arbitrales internationales 87 (M. de Fontmichel and J. Jourdan-Marques eds., LGDJ, 2017)
• “Le Guide du Secrétariat de la CNUDCI sur la Convention de New York pour la reconnaissance et l’exécution des sentences arbitrales étrangères [The UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards],” in Conference for a Euro-Mediterranean Community of International Arbitration / Conférence pour une communauté euro-méditerranéenne de l’arbitrage international 21 (UNCITRAL Publication No. V. 15-06738, 2015)
• “La réparation par le juge d’appui de la clause prévoyant une parité d’arbitres : interprétation extensive de l’article 1454 du Code de procédure civile [Intervention of the judge acting in support of the arbitral process: broad interpretation of Article 1454 of the French Code of Civil Procedure],” 2009(3) Revue de l’arbitrage 521 (co-author)
• “La consolidation de la place de l’estoppel dans le contrôle des sentences arbitrales [The increasing recognition of the estoppel principle in the review of arbitral awards],” 2008(2) Revue de l’arbitrage 325 (co-author)

• “Has third-party funding improved international arbitration?,” GAR Live, Vienna, 13 October 2023 (Panelist)
• “Le contrôle des sentences arbitrales par le juge interne,” Société Française pour le Droit International’s Colloquium – Droit international et juges internes, Bordeaux, 26 May 2023
• Keynote speech, DIS40 Spring Conference: “Is this the end?! – Arbitration in the post-award stage,” Munich, 4 May 2023
• “Enforcement Against Sovereign States: Hot topics and Recent Developments,” GAR webinar, 19 April 2023
• “Spotlight on Hong Kong: Innovations in International Arbitration,” Paris Arbitration Week, Paris, 30 March 2023
• “The Business of Arbitration: State of the Third Party Funding Market,” Paris Arbitration Week, Paris, 29 March 2023
• “Rule of Law and Transnational Public Policy in Arbitration,” Paris Arbitration Week, Paris, 29 March 2023
• “URGENCY! Emergency arbitration and provisional relief – Loyens & Loeff’s roundtable on comparative developments in arbitration,” Paris Arbitration Week, Paris, 29 March 2023
• “Doing Business and Arbitrating in France – Why arbitrating in Paris, what’s different?,” Tel Aviv Arbitration Week, Tel Aviv, 28 February 2023
• “Challenges in the enforcement of international awards,” Little Open, Asociación Europea de Arbitraje, Madrid, 15 February 2023
• “Sovereign & States Disputes and Enforcement,” ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE, London, 24-25 January 2023
• “After the war: The legal battles – Enforcement,” Kyiv Arbitration Days, Kyiv, 11 November 2022
• “Enforcement of Arbitral Awards,” Italian Arbitration Day, Rome, 9 June 2022
• “L’exécution des sentences arbitrales contre les États,” Masterclass ICC France, Paris, 2 June 2022
• “Enforcement of Awards – Different Regions Different Options in the Current Climate,” Annual International Arbitration & Corporate Crime Virtual Summit, webinar, 9 December 2021
• “Crimea Arbitration. What to Expect Next?,” Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee of the Ukrainian Bar Association, webinar, 1 June 2021
• “Interaction Between Compliance, Corruption and International Arbitration in the Civil Law Space,” ICC Task Force on International Arbitration and Corruption, webinar, 20 January 2021
• “Guerrilla Tactics in Online Hearings,” Ukrainian Arbitration Association, webinar, 20 May 2020
• “Le monde de l’arbitrage doit-il se soucier des parties faibles ou impécunieuses ?,” Ordre des Avocats de Paris and European Court of Arbitration Colloquium, La protection de la partie faible et de la partie impécunieuse dans l’arbitrage, Paris, 18 December 2019
• “Overview of available tools for asset tracing and recovery in the context of enforcement of contracts, arbitral awards and judgments,” UNCITRAL Colloquium on Civil Asset Tracing and Recovery, Vienna, 6 December 2019
• “The Creation of New Arbitration Centres Throughout the World and Their Limits,” 13th graduation ceremony of the MACI (Master of Arbitration and International Business Law of the University of Versailles), Paris, 17 October 2019
• “National court’s discretion to enforce an award that has been annulled at the place of arbitration,” IV Eastern European Dispute Resolution Forum (EEDRF), Minsk, 20 September 2019
• “Grounds for revising an award: procedural fraud from an investment arbitration perspective,” 34th Annual Joint Symposium of Arbitrators, Paris, 14 February 2019
• “The New York Convention Guide and web platform,” Vilnius Arbitration Day 2018 – 60 years of the New York Convention: present and future challenges,” Vilnius, 19 October 2018
• “Riconoscimento e esecuzione dei lodi stranieri in Francia e in Italia alla luce della recente giurisprudenza in materia nei due paesi. Profili comparatistici [Recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in France and in Italy in light of recent case law in those two countries. Comparative profiles],” Parigi Italia Arbitrato, Rome, 9 October 2018
• “The Yukos saga. Have you ever tried to enforce a 50 billion arbitral award annulled by a court in multiple other jurisdictions?,” ICDR Young & International conference, Arbitration War Stories, What they don’t teach you at Law School, Geneva, 26 September 2018
• “The UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the New York Convention and the newyorkconvention1958.org website,” Special seminar during the 2018 session of the Arbitration Academy, Paris, July 2018
• “Flexibility and Evolution in the Interpretation of the New York Convention,” Celebrating 50th UNCITRAL and 60th New York Convention Anniversaries – Joint UNCITRAL, Federal Ministry of Justice of Nigeria and International Dispute Resolution Institute conference, Abuja, 14 June 2018
• “Is document production really necessary/useful in arbitration,” Third Co-Chairs’ Circle Global Conference, Rome, 18 May 2018
• “Les systèmes disponibles pour obtenir des mesures provisoires et conservatoires durant l’arbitrage et les mécanismes pour les faire exécuter. Regards croisés entre la France et l’Espagne,” IX Journées Franco-Espagnoles – Regards croisés sur la relation entre les juges et l’arbitrage, Madrid, 2 February 2018
• “L’efficacité de la Convention de New York,” Colloque de l’Université de Versailles St. Quentin-en-Yvelines, L’exécution des sentences arbitrales internationales, Paris, 26 September 2016