Constantinos Salonidis

Representative Experience

State-State Arbitration and Litigation and Sovereign Advisory Work

• The State of Qatar and the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (2017) – Application (A); and, the State of Qatar and the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (2017) – Application (B). Counsel to Qatar in proceedings before the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization arising from certain aviation measures adopted by Respondents since June 2017.
• Counsel to Qatar in arbitration proceedings initiated against Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE under the auspices of the Universal Postal Union.
• Advising Qatar in proceedings initiated against Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the World Trade Organization and under the conciliation provisions of the ICERD. 
• Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) & Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar). Counsel to Qatar in proceedings before the International Court of Justice constituting appeals against decisions as to the jurisdiction and competence of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The Court unanimously rejected the appeals. 
• Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. UAE). Counsel to Qatar in this proceeding before the International Court of Justice. 
• The Philippines v. China. Counsel to the Philippines in the historical arbitral proceeding under Annex VII of UNCLOS to determine the maritime entitlements of the Philippines and China in the South China Sea.
• The Republic of Ecuador v. The United States of America. Counsel to Ecuador in a groundbreaking arbitration under the State-to-State dispute resolution provisions of the Ecuador – U.S. bilateral investment treaty concerning the interpretation and application of Article II(7) (the “effective means” provision) of the treaty.
• Advised a northeast African country regarding a territorial and maritime dispute with a neighboring country.

Investment Treaty Arbitration

• Sanitek S.a.r.l., Sari Haddad and Elias Doumet v. Republic of Armenia. Counsel to Armenia in an ICSID arbitration under the Armenia-Canada and Armenia-Lebanon bilateral investment treaties in a dispute concerning waste management services. 
• Axiata Investments (UK) Limited and Ncell Private Limited v. Nepal. Counsel to Nepal in an ICSID arbitration under the UK-Nepal bilateral investment treaty in a dispute concerning the imposition of capital gains tax on the acquisition of shares in a Nepalese telecom company. 
• Raiffeisen Bank International AG and Raiffeisen Bank Austria d.d. v. Republic of Croatia. Counsel to Croatia in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Croatia-Austria bilateral investment treaty arising from alleged investments in Croatia’s financial and banking sectors.
• Adria Group B.V. and Adria Group Holding B.V. v. Republic of Croatia. Counsel to Croatia in an ICSID arbitration under the Croatia-Netherlands bilateral investment treaty arising from alleged investments in a retail enterprise in Croatia.
• Nissan Motors Ltd. v. Republic of India. Counsel to India in a UNCITRAL Arbitration under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between India and Japan arising from alleged non-payment of tax refunds relating to the activities of an integrated automobile project in the Indian State of Tamil Nadu. 
• Thomas Gosling and others v. Republic of Mauritius. Counsel to Mauritius in an ICSID arbitration under the Mauritius – UK bilateral investment treaty arising from alleged investments in real estate projects in Mauritius. The tribunal in its award dismissed all of the investors’ claims for lack of jurisdiction and merit.
• Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS v. Republic of India.  Counsel to India in a UNCITRAL arbitration under the India – France bilateral investment treaty arising from a contract concerning the supply and operation of cargo handling equipment in the Indian State of West Bengal. In the final award, the Tribunal not only dismissed all claims, but also awarded India $7.2 million in costs.
• Philip Morris Brands et al v. The Oriental Republic of Uruguay. Counsel to Uruguay in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Uruguay – Switzerland bilateral investment treaty regarding Uruguay’s regulation of cigarette packaging and health warnings, and judicial disposition of the investor’s domestic administrative challenges. Claimants’ claims were dismissed for lack of merit. The tribunal also awarded Uruguay $7 million in costs.
• Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited & Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Limited v. The Kingdom of Belgium. Represented Belgium in an ICSID arbitration under the Belgium – China bilateral investment treaty arising from measures in the financial services sector. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the investor’s claims.
• European American Investment Bank AG (Austria) v. The Slovak Republic. Counsel to Slovakia in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Slovak Republic – Austria bilateral investment treaty arising from changes in the Slovak health insurance sector. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the investor’s claims. The tribunal also awarded Slovakia €1.6 million in costs.
• Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic (2). Counsle to Slovakia in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Slovak Republic – Netherlands BIT arising from alleged measures in the health insurance sector. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the investor’s claims. The tribunal also awarded Slovakia €1.35 million in costs.
• Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Counsel to Venezuela in an ICSID Additional Facility arbitration under the Venezuela – Canada bilateral investment treaty. Claimants’ claims were dismissed for lack of merit. 
• Wuxi T. Hertz Technologies Co. Ltd. and Jetion Solar Co. Ltd. v. Hellenic Republic. Counsel to Greece in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Greece – China bilateral investment treaty arising from alleged investments in a photovoltaic project in Northern Greece. The investors’ request for arbitration was withdrawn. 
• Talal Al Awamleh and others v. State of Qatar. Counsel to Qatar in an ICSID arbitration under the Qatar – Jordan bilateral investment treaty arising from contracts relating to a cable television franchise. The case was discontinued pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43.
• Slovak Gas Holding BV, GDF International SAS & E.ON Ruhrgas International GMBH v. the Slovak Republic. Counsel to Slovakia in an ICSID arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from changes in the Slovak energy secto. The case was discontinued pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43.
• Murphy Exploration & Production Company-International v. The Republic of Ecuador. Counsel to Ecuador in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Ecuador – U.S. bilateral investment treaty arising from changes in domestic legislation pertaining to the exploitation of oil resources in Ecuador. The claimant was awarded only a fraction of the claimed damages (approx.5%).
• City-State N.V and others v. Ukraine. Counsel to Ukraine in an ICSID arbitration under the Ukraine – Netherlands bilateral investment treaty arising from measures in the Ukrainian banking and financial sectors. The claimants were awarded less than a third of the original amount claimed.
• Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Counsel to Venezuela in two ICSID arbitrations under the Venezuela – Luxembourg and Venezuela – Portugal bilateral investment treaties arising from measures allegedly affecting claimants' investments in the Venezuelan steel industry. The claimants in the first case were awarded less than a quarter of the original amount claimed; in the second case, less than a third. 
• Merck Sharpe & Dohme (I.A.) v. The Republic of Ecuador. Counsel to Ecuador in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the Ecuador – U.S. bilateral investment treaty in connection with the treatment of a foreign investor by the Ecuadorean judiciary. 

International Commercial Arbitration and Related Cases

• Counsel to the Hellenic Republic in proceedings relating to the enforcement of an ICC award in US courts.  
• Counsel to a State-owned naval engineering firm in an ICC arbitration proceeding in connection with breach of contract claims relating to maintenance and repair of two submarines.

Professional Experience

• Greece, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Center for Research and Planning, 2008-2009
• Greece, Academy of Athens, Bureau of International and Constitutional Institutions, 2006-2009