Given the tribunal’s findings in the final award, the Tribunal did not have to consider GNSS’s request to confirm that the GNSS-Tenex Contract was avoided effective 5 November 2004 or any quantum issues, including the qualification of the Contract. Neither did the Tribunal need to consider Tenex’s arguments that the GNSS-Tenex Contract was invalid by virtue of the Swedish law principle of underlying assumptions, or because of the fact that it violates law or is contrary to good practice (pactum turpe), or as a matter of international public policy.

In its action for setting aside the award before the Svea Court of Appeal GNSS argued that the award should be set aside 1) since the arbitral tribunal addressed and decided a criminal law matter and 2) since the tribunal had exceeded its mandate in seven different respects, each of which was a sufficient ground to set aside the award. In any event, said GNSS, the arbitrators’ conduct in each of those situations (1 and 2) was an irregularity in the course of the proceedings which probably influenced the outcome of the case.

After a detailed review of the allegations made, the Court of Appeal concluded that the arbitral tribunal had not exceeded its mandate and had not committed any procedural errors. Further, since GNSS had not, during the arbitral proceedings, objected in enough detail with regard to some of the alleged irregularities, they were, in any event, time-barred from invoking them in support of their claim. Therefore the Svea Court of Appeal dismissed GNSS’s claim that the award shall be declared invalid or set aside. The Court did not grant leave to appeal its judgment.

To work together with Professor Lebedev in this case was a very pleasant experience. Although we in the above-mentioned partial award did not agree on all issues and Professor Lebedev wrote a dissenting opinion, this did in no way adversely affect the good spirit of cooperation that prevailed in the arbitral tribunal. On the contrary, we respected each other’s views also when we could not reach an agreement.

4. Other occasions to meet professor Lebedev

In addition to working with Professor Lebedev in UNCITRAL and as an arbitrator, I had the pleasure to meet Professor Lebedev on many other more informal occasions. We met, inter alia, on some ICCA congresses and Professor Lebedev visited Finland many times and gave there also some lectures on international commercial arbitration in Russia. He also visited my home in Helsinki for an informal dinner during which we discussed mainly other things than arbitration or other legal issues, inter alia the history of Russia and Finland. We were both wondering whether historical studies could ever be totally objective.

Further, I also had the pleasure to participate as a speaker together with him and some other Russian and Finnish lawyers, among others Professor Nina Vilkova and Professor Hannu Honka in a seminar on international commercial arbitration which took place in Kaliningrad.

These more informal events gave me an opportunity to get to know Professor Lebedev better also as a private person and not only as a lawyer. He was not only a brilliant lawyer but also a very cultivated person very knowledgeable, inter alia in history and art.

When Professor Lebedev passed away the legal community in general and the arbitration community in particular lost one of its most prominent personalities. Personally, I am missing a good friend.