5 2016. I got my IT guys to turn this round quickly (and a lot of PR work was done with the Regulatory body). The licence was received on Feb 12 2016 and was transmitted to Respondent the same day. Q: Respondent has also alleged that their payment certificates were both underpaid and honored late. Is that true? A: I wouldn't agree with that. Each of the payments was really a payment on account. This was based on my Accountant's assessment of the project value completed. It was expected that any shortfall would be picked up in subsequent certificates. And payment dates are tied to when the cheques are signed - this depends on the availability of both the signatories on our side. In many cases, one or the other is away on business travels, vacation, emergencies etc. That is why the small delays. Q: And the last milestone payment? A: That is different - you have to realize that from late 2017, the relationship between the parties was getting progressively worse. The media reports only added fuel to the fire. By the time that last certificate was submitted, the relationship between the parties had soured to a point that our phone calls were being ignored. Our lawyers had notified Respondent about our intention to claim loss and expense, including damages from them. There had been a flat refusal to entertain this. So we had to exercise business prudence and hold some monies back. Think of it as a payment-on-account by Respondent to us for their breach of contract. Q: Sounds very irregular to me...? A: That is really for the Arbitrator to decide, I guess. (X-E done) R-E by WW Emphasised the point that it was Claimant's intention all along to deal with Respondent fairly and in conformity with the contract. This, they had tried to do all along but Respondent's breaches had led them to take some mitigatory measures to prevent more loss. (R-E complete. No questions from me. Witness released - obviously quite relieved) (Short Adjournment) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +++ ++ + + +++++++++++++++++ Summary of Respondent's witness evidence Mr Nikolai Mikhailov, Managing Director, Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC E-I-C led by AS AS would focus mainly on areas where the parties differed. (I nodded my agreement). Was affirmed. Stated that he had worked on the Defence and Counterclaim with the help of his lawyers. He was a 1985 graduate from the Leningrad Friendship University with an honours degree in electronic circuit design and robotics. He had joined Respondent shortly thereafter and had worked his way to his present position as the Managing Director. Respondent's SH series of drones was an international best-seller.European Centre for UAV Development 1191 August-Gruber Street Salzburg Austria 2 April 2018 Ms Daniella Klein 89 Kalisz Avenue Warsaw Poland Dear Ms Klein Re: Open Skies Delivery Services Limited v Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC Thank you for your letter dated 26 Mar 2018. I am pleased to hereby confirm your appointment as arbitrator for the above dispute. Yours sincerely Angelina Stein (Ms.) Secretary General, European Centre for UAV Development Copy to: Open Skies Sokolov-HAWKIn the Matter of an Arbitration Between Open Skies Delivery Services Limited And Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC Defence and Counterclaim [hull-D 9. Respondent admits paragraphs 1 and 2 of the points of claim. Respondent admits paragraph 3 (a) to (g), (i) and 0) Respondent denies paragraphs 3 (h) and avers that the dates mentioned there were the original dates in the contract, but that due to Claimant's action or inaction, these dates were no longer achievable. Respondent avers that it was an implied term of contract that Claimant would facilitate the expeditious approval of the licence for deployment of the drones from the Regulatory body. European Aviation Authority. Respondent avers that this licence was delayed by a period of 40 days, hence impacting the whole schedule for the project. Respondent will argue that the clock was re-set to start from Feb 24 2016. Respondent avers that the following were some of the other terms of the contract: - a.) Contract clause 24 stipulated a bonus incentive clause 12,500 per day for each milestone date completed ahead of the original scheduled date. b.) Contract clause 28 stipulated that certicates are payable within 21 days of the date of presentation. Respondent denies paragraph 4 of the points of claim. Respondents will demonstrate that it improved on the new schedule dates and is therefore entitled to a bonus amount of 700K under clause 24 Respondent has no knowledge of paragraph 5 of the points of claim. Respondent admits the first sentence of paragraph 6 and will argue that as this technology is still very new. both parties were aware of this known risk. Respondent denies the second sentence ofthat paragraph. Paragraphs 7 to 10 are denied and Claimant will be put to the strict proof thereof. 10. Respondent admits paragraph 11 but denies any breach of contract on its part. In the Matter of an Arbitration Between Open Skies Delivery Services limited And Sokolov HAWK Drones LLC Reply and Defence to Counterclalm h 1. Claimant admits paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence but denies the rest of the defence and the counterclaim. 2. Claimant denies each and every one of these allegations by Respondent. 3. Respondent did not perform the contract as required and it is not entitled to make any such claim. 4. Claimant reiterates its Statement of Claim in its entirety. 5. Counterclaim should be rejected in its entirety. Served by Woolfe and Pa rtners, Attorneys at Law on behalf of Claimant 19 June 2018 the amount of E 1 million (which is really a very modest amount for the immense loss that we have suffered] So, overall we are asking the tribunal to award us the amount that we have claimed of 5.13 million. 2.63 + 1.50 + 1.00 = 5.13 million CLAIMANT CLAIM Doc C-S Loss of business claim Customer Annulled contracts Amount of loss "' Albrecht Heidi ;. -_ Geissler International 5236 000 HauerCom uter Services _ _ c 1 17600000 Missed deliveries - 3 Damaged goods - 3 City of Munich fine for accident with a protected species Retrieval costs Mechanical and other repairs Hike in insurance premiums TOTAL 1,501,000.00 ' Further details are under document on \"" Amounts based on average business for period 2015-2017 X-EbyAS AS stated that as the witness was already up on the stand, Respondent sought my indulgence to permit Respondent ask all relevant questions pertaining to any of the issues between the parties. Discussions with both parties. Agreed with the condition that I would allow the same courtesy to the Claimant. Q: You stated that the principle driver for the delivery timeline was the imminent release of your competitor 'No Distance's system by March 2018? A: Yes 0.: And by your own reckoning Respondent had delivered everything by late Jan 2018? A: Yes. But we were not just looking at the last completion date. For each milestone delivery, time was of the essence. And Respondent didn't hit any of those. (1: For good reason. Respondent has stated in his sworn afdavit that it was your responsibility to obtain the necessary licence approvals from the Regulatory body, European Aviation Authority [EM] without which it could not proceed with the manufacturing process. And you did eventually obtain the licence, but this was four weeks after the alleged contract start date of Jan 15 2016. Is that correct? A: Not quite. This was a joint responsibility. While we were to submit the actual application for the licence, the technical information for this came from the Respondent. This was only received on Feb The Parties agreed that certificates would be paid within 21 days (clause 28). The Parties agreed that the drones were to be delivered by the Respondent. The first set of drones was deployed in May 2016 for the Production Phase. However, six out of the twenty drones missed their deliveries during the Production phase. Contract extracts: "Any disputes arising from or in connection with this contract shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Secretary General of the European Centre for UAV Development, Salzburg. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules shall apply. The arbitrator appointed under this agreement shall be an Engineer practicing and experienced in the field of robotics and UAVs and shall decide all matters where the parties cannot agree."In the Matter of an Arbitration Between Open Skies Delivery Services Limited And Sokolov-l-IAWK Drones LLC Statement of Claim 1. Claimant. Open Skies Delivery Services Limited, (\"Open Skies\"), is a company registered and organised under the laws of Germany. Its primary business is in the timely delivery of small to medium size customer packages in six major cities of Germany. 2. Respondent in this matter is Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC, [\"50kolov-HAWK\"). a company registered under the laws of Russia. Respondent is involved in the design and manufacture of various robotic appliances including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVsi, commonly known as \"drones\". 3. On or around 15 Jan 2016 Claimant and Respondent entered into a oontract whereby Respondent undertook to, inter alia, design, manufacture and supply a total of 100 drones over a period of two years. and for a sum of 10 million. 3} hi 1) The following terms were incorporated into the oontract under clause 16, amongst other terms: - The manufacture and supply of 100 drones (type SH release 8.4) by Respondent was to happen over a period of 24 months. The deliveries of the drones were phased as follows (over four major milestones): - The production of the initial drone design, specifications, manufacture of 5 prototype drones, control system, test and delivery was to be completed under a proof-of-concept phase within a period of four months from the commencement date (\"Milestone One\") The remainder milestones (\"the Production Phase\") were contingent upon the successful com pletion of Milestone One. \"Milestone Two\" was the manufacture and delivery of 15 drones and successful deployment of these in the eld together with the first 5. This was to be achieved within four months of completion of Milestone One. \"Milestone Three\" was the manufacture and delivery of 30 drones and successful deployment of these in the field. This was to be achieved within six months of completion of Milestone One. \"Milestone Four" was the manufacture and delivery of the remainder 50 drones and successful deployment of these in the eld. This was to be achieved within ten months of completion of Milestone One. The commencement date was Jan 15 2016. Completion date was Jan 12 2018. Contract clause 19 stipulated that \"time is of the essence' Contract clause 23 stipulated liquidated damages at C 25,000.00 per day for each milestone date missed. Ms Daniella Klein 89 Kalisz Avenue Warsaw Poland 9 April 2018 Open Skies Delivery Services Limited 3186 Franz-Josef-Strauss Avenue Schwabing West Munich Germany and Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC 766 Leninsky Avenue, Konkovo P-H Moscow Russia Dear Sirs Re: Open Skies Delivery Services Limited v Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC I have been appointed by the Secretary General of the European Centre for UAV Development to act as arbitrator with regards to the above dispute which I have accepted on 6 April 2018. In accordance with my powers I direct that the Preliminary Meeting will be held by way of a conference call on 23 April 2018 at 1 PM Poland time. Should the date and time not be convenient I would be obliged if the parties would let me know without delay. I would also be grateful for your confirmation of your representatives and their contact details for the date of the Preliminary Meeting. In the meantime I request a copy of the contract including the arbitration agreement. I attach for your information a copy of my CV. I also enclose a copy of my commercial terms of engagement applicable to this matter and would be grateful if each party would kindly confirm acceptance of these terms in advance of the preliminary meeting. Yours faithfully Ms Daniella Klein, Dipl-Ing, F Mech Eng, C. Arb Arbitratorbe well-entrenched in the marketplace by then. This is the reason why Claimant inserted a \"time is of the essence\" provision and a liquidated damages clause. The RFP responses were opened on 11 Dec 2015 and by Christmas the bid evaluations had been completed. Negotiations were commenced with Respondent and a few other shortlisted bidders (while simultaneously her legal department did all the due-diligence checks, putting in place exclusivity agreements etc). These were concluded by Jan 15 2016. On the same day Claimant gave Respondent a green-light to proceed with the works with the agreed contract sum of 10 million and a timeline of 24 months. Claimant deemed this to be the contract start date. Sadly things did not go smoothly at all. Respondent missed all the key delivery dates (the milestones). Pointed to document C-4 in the Agreed Bundle: - CLAIMANT CLAIM Doc 04 Due Date Actual Delivery Date Milestone 1 16-May-16 25-Jun-16 Milestone 2 13-Sep-16 21-Oct-16 Milestone 3 14-Mar-17 7-Apr-17 Milestone 4 12-Jan-18 15-Jan18 We were therefore late in hitting the market as planned and lost quite a bit of business due to this. This loss works out at the daily rate of liquidated damages of 6 25.000 to be a total of C 2.63 million. If that was not enough, when the rst batch of 20 drones were received and put to work, 6 of them missed their deliveries. 3 went off-track and ended up a few kilometers fr0m their target venues. 2 had mechanical issues and crash landed in the forested areas surrounding the city of Munich. 1 collided with a flying Swamp Eagle (a protected species of the bird} and went off-course. The City Inspectorate fined us heavily for this last accident. These three crashes also had damage to the goods being transported, incurring us in damage claims, retrieval costs, repair-works and subsequent higher insurance premiums across the board. A summary of this is shown under Doc CS. More details are available under document (3-13 (note to candidates - not provided]. We are claiming these from the Respondent by way of damages. And nally, Madam Arbitrator, these defaults had a direct impact on our business portfolio and image. These problems were splashed in the local media - we believe that these were instigated by our competitor \"No Distance\Ms Daniella Klein 89 Kalisz Avenue Warsaw 24 April 2018 Open Skies Delivery Services Limited through Woolfe and Partners, Attorneys at Law, 112 Franz-Josef-Strauss Avenue East, Munich Germany and Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC through Smirnoff and Mckenzie Legal Services, 189 Avenue Louise, Moscow Russia Dear Sirs Re Open Skies Delivery Services Limited v Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC Order for Directions No. 1 Following the Preliminary Meeting on 23 April 2018 (held via Telephone Conference) and which was attended by Ms. Monika Schmidt from Open Skies Delivery Services Limited and assisted by Mr. Wolfgang Wurkhardt; and by Mr. Nikolai Mikhailov from Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC , assisted by Ms. Anastasia Smirnoff, I confirm the following (all as agreed between the parties except where noted otherwise): - 1. Open Skies Delivery Services Limited ("Open Skies") is Claimant in this matter; Sokolov- HAWK Drones LLC ("Sokolov-HAWK") is Respondent. 2. My terms of appointment were agreed. 3. The arbitration is to be conducted under the UNCITRAL rules. 4. Parties confirmed that they had opted for an independent law of contract, and that this had been agreed between them as the English law of contract. 5. Claimant will serve its points of claim by 15 May 2018 together with all supporting documents. 6. Respondent will serve its defence and counterclaim together with all supporting documents within 21 days of (5) above 7. Claimant will serve its reply and defence to counterclaim within 14 days of (6) aboveOpen Skies Delivery Services Limited 3186 Franz-Josef-Strauss Avenue West Schwabing West Munich Germany 21 Feb 2018 Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC 766 Leninsky Avenue Konkovo P-H Moscow Russia Attn: Mr Nikolai Mikhailov Dear Sir Contract for Supply of 100 Drones - Notice to refer our dispute to arbitration We refer to our earlier discussions and correspondence. Once again you have missed the delivery timeline milestone as stipulated in the contract and have refused to acknowledge the damage that this is causing our business. You have consistently and unreasonably denied this breach of contract on your part. We are therefore obliged to take this matter to arbitration. As you are no doubt aware the contract contains an arbitration clause. Therefore take note that a dispute has crystallised between us, and thus we hereby give notice that should we not receive within 14 days the payments as variously demanded and justified by us in our lengthy correspondence we will apply to the European Centre for UAV Development to appoint an arbitrator. Yours faithfully Ms. Monika Schmidt For: Open Skies Delivery Services LimitedExtracts from Arbitrator's Notebook at the Hearing {Summary only - transcribed from my chicken-scratched shorthand notes): Grand Frederick Chopin Hotel, Warsaw, arranged by Claimant. Dates as agreed. DAY ONE Representation: Claimant was represented by Mr Wolfgang Wurkhardt {W'}, Attorney, Federal Court of Justice, BGH, Germany. Respondent was represented by Ms Anastasia Smirnoff (\"AS'l, Advocate of the Moscow Commercial Court. Preliminary matters: AS sought leave to raise an urgent application these were facts only recently obtained by the Respondent. She had a written application which related to my jurisdiction- I asked Ms Smirnoff to share the written application with Claimant. Having read this, WW protested that this was quite un-prooedural. A5 stated that the Arbitrator should look at the applications and give some directions. I agreed with Respondent and stated that I would need to hear a formal oral application and Claimant's response before I made any determinations on this. [Wit/quite uneasy] AS: As to our application, which is made under art 13 of the Model Law, it has come to our knowledge this week that you Madam have a conict of interest that you have not declared, perhaps unwittingly. Nevertheless it puts my Client in a disadvantaged position in this arbitration. We have learnt that you were interviewed for this role in Jan 2018 by Gerhardt Fox Associates, Attorneys, based in Berlin. We have further learnt that 'Gerhardt Fox Associates\" and "Woolfe and Partners\" are both owned by \"A P Morganfelt Holdings\" of Frankfurt, Germany. This, Madam, is too close an association to make you impartial. Besides you have not declared this meeting or what was discussed there. With respect, we feel that these are compelling reasons for you to withdraw from these proceedings. WW: Respondent is obviously making a mountain out of a molehill here. Even if the alleged facts are true, there is no evidence here of any bias by the Arbitrator. Besides the application is too late. Me: This is a su rprise, not least, for me. It is quite true that l was interviewed at G For: Associates. But this was a general discussion and no mention was made of any specifics of any cases. This happens quite frequently in this business. Nor was I aware of Fox's connection to Woolfe's; and I havejust heard about the holding company A P Morganfelt for the rst time today. My suggestion to the parties is to leave this matter for me to deal with and not let it impact the hearing timeline. Should the Respondent not be satised with my ruling on it, it still has an opportunity to challenge it under the law art 13. Information for the Sole Arbitrator's notes EIC => Examination-In-Chief EX => Cross-Examination RE => Redirect-examinationMs Daniella Klein 89 Kalisz Avenue Warsaw Poland 26 Mar 2018 Ms Angelina Stein Secretary General European Centre for UAV Development 1191 August-Gruber St Salzburg Austria RE: Open Skies Delivery Services Limited and Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC Dear Ms Stein, Thank you for your letter of 19 Mar 2018 in which you inform me of my appointment as arbitrator in the referenced arbitration. I don't think that there are any reasons to believe that circumstances exist to raise questions as to whether I could be independent and impartial in this arbitration. I am a practicing Engineer specialized in the UAV industry. I am also a Chartered Arbitrator of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Warsaw Chapter. I therefore confirm that I am pleased to accept the appointment as arbitrator. Yours sincerely Ms Daniella Klein Dipl-Ing, F Mech Eng, C. Arb10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Respondent will serve its reply to the counterclaim, if any, within 14 days of (7) above Parties may apply to me promptly for disclosure of any specic documents with reasons as to why the party is entitled to request that document from the other party. The agreed bundle of documents shall be forwarded to the arbitrator within 28 days of (8) above. The hearing will take place in Warsaw, Poland on 27 and 28 August 2018 at the Grand Frederick Chopin Hotel, 216 Lubna Street, Warsaw. The necessary arrangements for this venue shall, in the rst instance, be made by Claimant. Parties will have one witness of fact each. The parties both wish to appoint up to two experts each side to deal with the matter of the control systems and/or the quantum. Experts will give their testimony after both the witnesses of fact have presented their evidence. Experts may not sit-in when the witnesses of fact are presenting their evidence. Parties disagreed on the seat of arbitration and the applicable law of arbitration. Claimant wanted Berlin to be the seat while Respondent argued for Moscow to be seat. As parties were unable to agree, they sought directions from me. I ordered that Berlin be the seat and the arbitration law be the German Arbitration Act. Reasons will be given in my award. (Nate: Candidates are not expected to know the intricacies of the German Arbitration law - they may apply the UNCITRAL Model law on Arbitration provisions as if they were incorporated in rii in the German Arbitration iaw) Each party to deposit #1 30,000 in my Client account within 7 days- Either party may apply for corrections or clarications to this order within 7 days. Costs It is so ordered. Ms Daniella Klein Arbitrator 4. Respondent did not meet any of the milestone dates hence incurring Claimant to suffer loss and expense. Claimant is looking to the tribunal to award it damages under this claim by way of liquidated damages in the amount of E 2.6 million. Details of these have been provided to Respondent at various times, only to have them rejected. Details will be availed to the tribunal as part of the evidence to be provided. 5. It was clearly understood between the parties that drones would make their deliveries within a window of +/- 10% of the delivery time quoted to the customer. Claimant has a clearly advertised policy that if delivery is later than 1096 of the quoted time, then the delivery is done free of charge to the customer. 6. In late May 2016, when the rst drones were deployed as part of the Production Phase, six out of the twenty drones missed their deliveries. This resulted in costs and expenses which Claimant is looking to recover from the Respondent. 7. Further, due to these failed deliveries, which were picked up and reported widely by the press, Claimant lost three major customers to Claimant's competitors. This loss of customers converts to a long-term business loss which has been quantied by Claimant's Accountants and will be availed to the tribunal as part of the evidence to be presented. This amounts to (1.5 million 8. Claimant further contends that Respondent's breach of the contract as outlined in (6} and (7] above resulted in Claimant's loss of reputation and professional standing in Germany which Claimant is looking to this tribunal to award it by way of general damages in the amount of 1 million. 9. Therefore total amount that Claimant is claiming for is E 5.1 million. 10. Despite requests from Claimant to address these issues, Respondent has refused to take responsibility for these defaults and blamed Claimant for them. 11. In light of this situation and Respondent's clear indication that it would not accept responsibility for these, Claimant informed Respondent by letter of 21 Feb 2013 that Claimant would commence arbitration proceedings against Respondent for breach of the contract. Relief sought 12. Claimant prays to the tribunal to declare that (i) That Respondent has breached the contract (ii) Order Respondent to pay damages in the sum of (55.1 million, details of which will be supplied in due course. (iii) Interest (Iv) Order Respondent to pay all the costs ofthe arbitration, including tribunal's costs Served by Woolfe and Partners, Attorneys at Law on behalf of Claimant 15"1 May 2018 (Consultation behveen the two legal reps] AS: My learned friend and me. we are happy for you to consider this issue as part of your award. We have further agreed that should you find that there is a denite conflict. you may still proceed and deal with the matters placed before you; and give your ruling accordingly with reasons plus costs for this matter. WW stated that In order to save on costs, Claimant and Respondent had come up with a short list of documents that they each wanted to rely on. They had put together these in a separate short bundle for ease of reference by the tribunal and the parties. AS concurred with W. I stated that that was very helpful. Summary of Claimant's witness evidence Ms Monika Schmidt. Open Skies Delivery Sentices Limited (\"Open Skies\") I asked the two witnesses-of-opinion to leave the room. Done. E44: by ww Took the oath. She was CEO of the Claimant org. She was a 1980 graduate of Dusseldorf University with an MBA in International Logistics. She had initially worked for Fed-Ex and then started Open Skies as a small start-up courier company in the late nineties. Open Skies dealt with timely delivery of small to medium sized parcels of non-perishable goods primarily within Germany but also serving neighbouring countries principally in Belgium, Netherlands and Poland. Coner that the Statement of Claim was written with her substantial input. Initially, Claimant used the traditional methods to ship parcels - using vans, trucks and scooters depending on the distances and the sizes of the parcels. As the business grew (and it did so in leaps and bounds) she started looking out for more sophisticated methods of deliveries. She first made acquaintance with Respondent around October 2015. when they had met at the bi-annual gathering of the European Society for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles {ESUAVsl and to which meeting she had been invited. Amongst the many products and services that she explored at that meeting were several that dealt with robotics and automated deliveries. She was quite impressed with Respondent's range of products specially the \"SH release 8" series of drones. Mr Nicolai Mikhailov {and who was the MD of Respondent org) assured her that these drones were on the bleeding-edge of drone technology and these could give her company an edge overthe competition. She had received business Intelligence that her principle competitor, \"No Distance Too Far Parcels\" was about to invest in a similar technology. So Claimant was really motivated to invest in the next major step to keep ahead of the competition. In Nov 2015. Claimant released a Request for Proposal ('RFP\"I to several companies. one of which was the Respondent. The RFP was for the supply of 100 drones over a period of 24 months. This project had to be completed by Jan 12 2018. The reason for this was that as per their business intelligence \"No Distance\" was poised to release Its own comparable services in early March 2018 and Claimant wanted to 11. 12. 14. 15. Accordingly Respondent denies any liability to Claimant. Counterclalm Respondent avers that Claimant has breached the contract by failing to pay the certificates as per the stipulated clause 28 timeline. . Further, Respondent contends that Claimant arbitrarily held back payment amounts. Respondent claims an amount of (2 5,698,244 as payment shortfalls, bonus under clause 24 of the contract and interest due to delays on payments. Respondent will produce details for these in the course of the proceedings. Relief Requested Respondent calls upon the tribunal to declare that Claimant to la) Pay the amount of 4.900.000 as payment shortfalls. (b) Pay interest on (a) at the prevailing market rate of 10% (c) Pay the amount of 687,500 as bonus under clause 24 Id) in summary, Claimant to payr the aggregated sum of 5,698,244 to Respondent together with costs. Served by Smirnoff and McKenzie legal Services on behalf of Respondent 5')"1 June 2018 European Centre for UAV Development 1191 August-Gruber Street Salzburg Austria 19 Mar 2018 Ms Daniella N Klein 89 Kalisz Avenue Warsaw Poland Dear Ms Klein I am requested by Open Skies Delivery Services Limited, Munich, Germany, by its letter dated 12 Mar 2018, to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with a contractual arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement is contained in a contract between Open Skies Delivery Services Limited of Germany and Sokolov-HAWK Drones LLC of the Russian Federation The arbitration agreement states: "Any dispute arising from or in connection with this contract shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Secretary General of the European Centre for UAV Development, Salzburg. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules shall apply. The arbitrator appointed under this agreement shall be an Engineer practicing and experienced in the field of Robotics and UAVs and shall decide all matters where the parties cannot agree." A copy of the notice of arbitration is attached. I am advised that a dispute has arisen between the parties to the contract and in accordance with the request from Open Skies Delivery Services Limited I now appoint you as arbitrator in this matter, subject to your acceptance of this appointment. I would be grateful if you would confirm that you have no conflict of interest in this matter and that you are willing and able to undertake this appointment. Yours sincerely Angelina Stein (Ms.) Secretary General European Centre for UAV Development . Enclosure (Note to candidates: not included)