Opinion ID: 2772783
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of Hungarian Remedies

Text: In the district court the defendants identified various Hungarian remedies that might be available (or have been 20 Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 available) to plaintiffs. See AA 163–73 (national railway); AA 1170–87 (national bank). 3 The national defendants pointed to the First, Second, and Third Compensation Acts, as well as the Jewish Heritage Public Foundation, as remedies that may have been available to plaintiffs. The district court held that such non-judicial remedies “were not truly available to Plaintiffs due to the time and circumstances surrounding the application for such remedies and certain limitations placed on recoveries under such remedies.” Fischer, 2013 WL 4525408, at . Whether these compensation acts provide(d) an adequate remedy is no longer an issue on appeal. The national defendants also identified judicial remedies that may be available in a civil action in Hungary. These primarily include property-based claims and contractual claims that plaintiffs could assert against the banks. Hungarian courts will also entertain international law claims. AA 1179 & n.16 (national bank explaining that “Hungarian courts would be receptive” to international law based on its reading of the former and new Constitutions, Hungarian Constitutional Court decisions, and a Hungarian law expert’s opinion), citing AA 928 (Act XX of 1949 Constitution [Former Constitution], art. 7(1)), AA 772 (Translation of The Fundamental Law [New Constitution] Apr. 25, 2011, art. Q), AA 892–901 (Constitutional Court Decision No. 53/1993), and AA 985–86 (Dr. Sonnevend Declaration ¶¶ 43–45). Plaintiffs have not shown that the remedies identified by defendants are illusory. For this reason, the district court concluded 3The parties have provided record documents in various appendices to which we refer throughout the opinion. Citations are to the Short Appendix (SA), Appellees’ Appendix (AA), and Erste Bank Group Appendix (EA). Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 21 that defendants had “shown that Plaintiffs can bring a civil action in the Hungarian courts to seek a remedy for the wrongs” alleged in their complaints. Fischer, 2013 WL 4525408, at . We agree that these judicial remedies are sufficiently promising that plaintiffs should be required to bring suit in Hungary before their suits may proceed in the United States. Given the sort of international law and property claims available in Hungary, the claims are congruent enough to those that plaintiffs assert here that requiring plaintiffs to sue first in Hungary will not deprive plaintiffs of the remedy they seek. As we explained in the first appeal, remedies available in Hungary “need not be perfectly congruent with those available in the United States to be deemed adequate.” See Abelesz, 692 F.3d at 685.