I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 474 

To ensure that the courts of the United States may provide an impartial 

forum for claims brought by United States citizens and others against 

any railroad organized as a separate legal entity, arising from the deportation of United States citizens and others to Nazi concentration camps 

on trains owned or operated by such railroad, and by the heirs and 

survivors of such persons. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 

Mrs. MALONEY (for herself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. NADLER, 

and Mr. WEINER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure that the courts of the United States may provide 

an impartial forum for claims brought by United States 

citizens and others against any railroad organized as 

a separate legal entity, arising from the deportation of 

United States citizens and others to Nazi concentration 

camps on trains owned or operated by such railroad, 

and by the heirs and survivors of such persons. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds as follows: 
2 

•HR 474 IH 

1 (1) During World War II, more than 75,000 

2 Jews and thousands of other persons were deported 

3 from France to Nazi concentration camps, on trains 

4 operated for profit by the Socie ́te ́ Nationale des Che5 mins de Fers Franc ̧ais (in this Act referred to as 

6 ‘‘SNCF’’), including deportations to Auschwitz and 

7 Buchenwald. Numerous citizens and residents of the 

8 United States were among those on the trains or 

9 had relatives on the trains. United States servicemen 

10 who were pilots shot down over France were also 

11 among the persons deported on the SNCF trains to 

12 Nazi concentration camps. 

13 (2) United States citizens and others have 

14 sought redress against SNCF by filing a class action 

15 suit in the United States District Court for the 

16 Eastern District of New York. The named plaintiffs 

17 and class members include United States Army Air 

18 Force pilots and United States citizens. 

19 (3) The complaint filed alleges that SNCF, a 

20 separate corporate entity which remained inde21 pendent during World War II, operated the deporta22 tion trains for a profit, as ordinary commercial 

23 transactions. SNCF remained under French civilian 

24 control throughout World War II and is alleged to 
3 

•HR 474 IH 

1 have collaborated willingly with the German Nazi re2 gime. 

3 (4) The complaint alleges that SNCF provided 

4 the necessary rolling stock, scheduled the depar5 tures, and supplied the employees to operate the 

6 trains bound for the concentration camps. SNCF al7 legedly charged an ordinary passenger coach fare for 

8 the deportations, calculated per person and per kilo9 meter, and considered these trains as ordinary com10 mercial activities. The plaintiffs further contend that 

11 SNCF herded as many people as possible into each 

12 car, requiring passengers of all ages and sexes, in13 cluding the elderly and young children, to stand 

14 throughout the trip of several days’ duration, with 

15 no provision for food or water and no sanitary facili16 ties. The complaint further alleges that SNCF 

17 cleaned the trains after each trip, removing the 

18 corpses of persons who perished during transit due 

19 to the execrable conditions of the train cars. The 

20 destination was in each case a camp in which the de21 portees were to be exterminated, worked to death, or 

22 made to suffer terrible and inhuman conditions. 

23 (5) The complaint contends that SNCF’s ac24 tions violated the Principles of the Nuremberg Tri25 bunal, 1950, relating to crimes under international 
4 

•HR 474 IH 

1 law (earlier recognized by the Martens Clause of the 

2 Hague Convention IV of 1907), and aided and abet3 ted the commission of war crimes and crimes against 

4 humanity. SNCF has not denied its actions and has 

5 never disgorged the money that it was paid for the 

6 deportations or otherwise compensated the deportees 

7 or their heirs. 

8 (6) SNCF’s records concerning the deportation 

9 trains have not been made available to the plaintiffs, 

10 and SNCF archives concerning its wartime activities 

11 remain closed to the general public. 

12 (7) SNCF moved to dismiss the lawsuit on a 

13 claim of sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sov14 ereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. 1330 and 

15 1602 et seq.), even though it is one of the 500 larg16 est corporations in the world, earns hundreds of mil17 lions of dollars from its commercial activities in the 

18 United States, and is not accorded sovereign immu19 nity under the laws of France. SNCF’s motion to 

20 dismiss the lawsuit has been granted by the United 

21 States District Court for the Eastern District of 

22 New York. Plaintiffs appealed the decision, their ap23 peal was granted, and the case was remanded for 

24 further proceedings. In November 2004, on remand, 

25 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit deter-
5 

•HR 474 IH 

1 mined that SNCF was entitled to immunity and af2 firmed the dismissal of the complaint. 

3 (8) This lawsuit presents issues of substantial 

4 importance to citizens and veterans of the United 

5 States and finds that the courts of the United States 

6 are and should be a proper forum for this lawsuit 

7 and similar suits. 

8 (9) SNCF is attempting to use the Foreign 

9 Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, enacted 30 years 

10 after the events at issue occurred, to evade liability 

11 for conduct for which it would otherwise be held ac12 countable, rather than accepting responsibility for its 

13 actions. Under the rule of separate entities applica14 ble at the time of the events in question, SNCF 

15 would not be immune from suit in United States 

16 courts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 

17 1976 was not intended to expand the reach of im18 munity in these circumstances. 

19 SEC. 2. ACCESS TO UNITED STATES COURTS FOR HOLO20 CAUST DEPORTEES. 

21 (a) JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS.—The 

22 United States district courts shall have original jurisdic23 tion, without regard to the amount in controversy, of any 

24 civil action for damages for personal injury or death 

25 that— 
6 

•HR 474 IH 

1 (1) arose from the deportation of persons to 

2 Nazi concentration camps during the period begin3 ning on January 1, 1942, and ending on December 

4 31, 1944; and 

5 (2) is brought by any such person, or any heir 

6 or survivor of such person, against a railroad that— 

7 (A) owned or operated the trains on which 

8 the persons were so deported; and 

9 (B) was organized as a separate legal enti10 ty at the time of the deportation, whether or 

11 not any of the equity interest in the railroad 

12 was owned by a foreign state. 

13 (b) OTHER LAWS NOT APPLICABLE.—Sections 1330 

14 and 1601 through 1611 of title 28, United States Code, 

15 or any other law limiting the jurisdiction of the United 

16 States courts, whether by statute or under common law, 

17 shall not preclude any action under subsection (a). 

18 (c) INAPPLICABILITY OF STATUTES OF LIMITA19 TION.—No action described in subsection (a) shall be 

20 barred by a defense that the time for bringing such action 

21 has expired under a statute of limitations. 

22 (d) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to any 

23 action pending on January 1, 2002, and to any action 

24 commenced on or after that date. 

Æ