Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert, a partner in the Hamburg and London offices, advises and represents companies, individuals, and states in disputes with a particular focus on international arbitration.
Mr. Seelmann-Eggebert’s experience in arbitration includes acting as lead counsel in a number of complex disputes involving public international law and the substantive laws of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, and Azerbaijan, among other countries, and conducted under the rules of the DIS, ICC, ICSID, SCC, UNCITRAL, as well as under German and Swiss ad hoc rules. He regularly advises clients from the energy, insurance, media, telecommunications, banking, and construction industries.
Mr. Seelmann-Eggebert has also handled a large number of high-profile cases before the German courts, including the Federal Constitutional Court.
Mr. Seelmann-Eggebert is consistently listed as a “leading name” for Arbitration and is a “recommended” lawyer for Litigation (Who's Who Legal, JUVE, Chambers Europe Germany, Handelsblatt Best Lawyers, Legal 500 Germany). Competitors describe him as “first class,” and report that “there is hardly anyone better on the international stage” (JUVE 2014/2015, 2016/2017). In investment disputes, Seelmann-Eggebert is “among those shaping the German market” (JUVE 2015/2016). “Sources note highly regarded arbitration counsel Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert for his international experience and excellent track record. Interviewees highlight his in-depth approach, saying: ‘He is very thorough and does not miss any details’” (Chambers Europe Germany 2015). According to The Legal 500 Germany 2014, competitors praise Mr. Seelmann-Eggebert as a “brilliant mind.” He was included in the ICSID list of arbitrators and conciliators in 2013.
Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert has been involved as lead counsel in various representative cases, including:
- Indorama International Finance Limited v. the Arab Republic of Egypt as Counsel to the Claimant in an ICSID arbitration involving breaches of a bilateral investment treaty in relation to an investment in the textiles industry
- Guardian Fiduciary Trust v. The Republic of Macedonia as Counsel to the Respondent in an ICSID arbitration involving alleged breaches of a bilateral investment treaty in relation to the financial services industry
- GEA Group AG v. Ukraine with regard to the defense of Ukraine against investment claims brought by the German technology company GEA in an ICSID arbitration. The arbitration raised a number of complex issues, including protection afforded by public international law to the enforcement of arbitration awards. The tribunal dismissed all of GEA’s claims and awarded Ukraine all of its costs
- EVN AG v. The Republic of Macedonia as Counsel of the Respondent in an ICSID arbitration involving issues under the Energy Charter Treaty and under a bilateral investment treaty in relation to the operation of an electricity network
- Alapli Elektrik BV v. The Republic of Turkey as Counsel of the Claimant in an ICSID arbitration involving issues under the Energy Charter Treaty and bilateral investment treaties in relation to electricity generation concessions
- Barmek v. The Republic of Azerbaijan as Counsel of the Respondent in an ICSID arbitration involving issues of alleged expropriation under bilateral investment treaties in relation to a concession agreement for the operation of electrical grids
- Adria Beteiligungs GmbH v. The Republic of Croatia as Counsel of the Respondent in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the aegis of the Permanent Court of Arbitration involving issues of alleged expropriation under bilateral investment treaties in relation to a gaming concession agreement
- IPOC International Growth Fund v. OAO CT-Mobile, OAO Telecominvest et al. as Counsel to the second Respondent in an SCC arbitration involving issues of a shareholders agreement among the main shareholders of one of Russia’s largest mobile telephone operators MegaFon