Source: https://sfbwmag.com/d-c-circuit-narrows-victims-path-to-recovery/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:38:20+00:00

Document:
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA)1 immunizes a foreign state from suit in U.S. courts unless an exception under that law, such as the “expropriation exception,”2 applies.3 Under the expropriation exception, a “foreign state shall not be immune” if “rights in property [are] taken in violation of international law are in issue” and if there is a requisite “commercial nexus.” 4 There are two ways to satisfy the “commercial nexus” requirement: either the property at issue “is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state” (the first clause), or the property at issue “is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States” (the second clause). 5 Recently in de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary,6 the D.C. Circuit narrowly interpreted the second clause in a way that nullifies the expropriation exception.
Advocates for victims may argue that the de Csepel decision fails to give the expropriation exception its intended breadth. It can be argued the decision deviates from the plain text of the expropriation exception, which provides two independent ways of satisfying the commercial nexus requirement so that a “foreign state shall not be immune,” as evidenced by the disjunctive “or” that separates both clauses. As the dissent in de Csepel pointed out, “[a]lthough § 1605(a)(3) provides that a foreign state shall not be immune from suit, the majority crosses out the ‘not’ and holds that the foreign state shall be immune” if only the second clause is satisfied. 14 Requiring a plaintiff to meet the first clause as a condition precedent to invoking the second makes it more difficult to sue foreign states in situations where the property is located outside of the United States.
Rossana Baeza is a litigation associate at Zumpano Patricios, P.A., who focuses her practice on international law and health care matters. You can reach her at [email protected] or (305) 444-5565.
1) Pub. L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.).
2) 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) (2012).
3) See id. § 1604.
4) See id. § 1605(a)(3).
6) 859 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
13) See de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 859 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017), petition for cert. filed, 86 U.S.L.W. 3640 (U.S. June 25, 2018) (No. 17-1165) (inviting “[t]he Solicitor General . . . to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States”).
14) Id. at 1111 (Randolph, J., dissenting in part).
15) Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 27–28, de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 2018 WL 1028055 (No. 17-1165).
16) Motion to Dismiss by Hungary, the Hungarian National Gallery, the Museum of Fine Arts, the Museum of Applied Arts, the Budapest University of Technology and Economics, and Magyar Nemzeti Vagyonkezelő Zrt at 25–30, de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 808 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2011) (No. 10-1261); Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings in This Matter Pending Resolution of Plaintiffs’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 808 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2011) (No. 10-1261).

References: v. 
 § 1605
 § 1605
 § 1604
 § 1605
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.