Republic of austria v altmann case
The defense of foreign sovereign immunity is a matter of "substantive federal law," Verlinden U.
Indeed, the Bernstein litigation note 22, suprawhich led to the recognition of the Bernstein exception, involved a Dutch corporation, not a foreign government. That amendment was attached to the statute that created the cause of action, see former 31 U.
In this context, it would be anomalous to presume that an isolated provision such as the expropriation exception on which respondent relies is of purely prospective application absent any statutory language to that effect.
Circuit in Princz, have rejected them. It contains no exception to the general rule of foreign sovereign immunity for "unfriendly" sovereigns.
Central Bank of Nigeria, U. The United States did not depart from the governing principles of sovereign immunity in the case of Holocaust-related claims. Garamendi, U.
Altmann v austria arbitration
The United States did not depart from the governing principles of sovereign immunity in the case of Holocaust-related claims. Schumer, U. Respondent alleges that, during the Holocaust, Nazi officials confiscated the paintings from her uncle, Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, in violation of international law. Such a change "does not merely allocate jurisdiction among forums. United States, U. See id. According to respondent's complaint, Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer's heirs attempted to recover the expropriated property under post-war restitution laws, but Austria maintained that Adele Bloch-Bauer, who had died in , had bequeathed the Klimt paintings to Austria. The court of appeals reached that conclusion on the mistaken understanding that, because Austria had itself adopted the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity in the s, it "could have had no reasonable expectation of immunity in a foreign court. Eizenstat Jan. She brought this action to recover six paintings by the famous Austrian artist Gustav Klimt that the Republic of Austria currently possesses and houses within the Austrian Gallery.
Before enactment of the FSIA, United States courts clearly understood that questions of sovereign immunity would be decided "in conformity to the principles accepted by the department of the government charged with the conduct of our foreign relations.
First, it failed to give proper account to this Court's retroactivity decisions, which counsel that the FSIA's expropriation exception should not be applied retroactively to conduct that predated enactment of the FSIA and, indeed, predated the United States' adoption of the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity in Most significantly, new exceptions to the general rule of foreign sovereign immunity that abrogate past protections from suit are properly viewed under Hughes as abridging substantive rights.
Woman in gold
And even under the restrictive theory, a foreign state's act of expropriation was a public or "sovereign" act, as to which the foreign state retained its sovereign immunity. The court of appeals' mistaken understanding would subject foreign nations to suit on precisely those claims that the courts have heretofore consistently recognized to lie at the core of a foreign state's sovereign immunity. The court explained that, even under the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity, foreign states continued to enjoy immunity with respect to suits challenging "strictly political or public acts about which sovereigns have traditionally been quite sensitive," which included, in particular, suits respecting the "nationalization" of property. Respondent claims that Austria expropriated the Klimt paintings in violation of international law and that the district court has jurisdiction pursuant to the FSIA's expropriation exception, 28 U. Altmann, U. Absent clear statement otherwise, only such relevant activity which occurs after the effective date of the statute is covered. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. In the absence of such authorization, the courts would not, on their own, have created an exception to the doctrine of absolute immunity. Republic of Cuba, U. As in Hughes, Congress's elimination of such a defense is subject to the presumption against retroactive legislation. When, however, the statute contains no such express command the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i. Not only do we answer this question in the negative, but we find clear evidence that Congress intended the Act to apply to preenactment conduct. The court of appeals' contrary conclusion is mistaken, it departs from settled understandings in the international community, and it may have serious consequences for the United States' conduct of its foreign relations, including reciprocal treatment of the United States in foreign courts. The court of appeals reached that conclusion on the mistaken understanding that, because Austria had itself adopted the restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity in the s, it "could have had no reasonable expectation of immunity in a foreign court. Other provisions of the FSIA, however, require a different result.
based on 103 review