APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
IN THE NAME OF GOD
To the Registrar, International Court of Justice:
I, the undersigned, duly authorised by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
("Iran") of which I am the Agent, have the honour to submit to the International Court of
Justice, in accordance with Articles 36(1) and 40(1) of its Statute and Article 38 of its Rules,
an application instituting proceedings brought by Iran against the Unitedtates of America
(the "USA") in the following case.
I. SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE
1. The dispute between Iran and the USA concerns the adoption by the USA of a series of
measures that, in violation of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular
Rights signed at Tehran on 15 August 1955 (the "Treaty of Amity"), which entered into
1
force between Iran and the USA on 16 June 1957, have had, and/or are having a serious
adverse impact upon the ability of Iran and of Iranian companies (including Iranian
State-owned companies) to exercise their rights to control and enjoy their property,
including property located outside the territoryIran I within the territory of the USA.
II. THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
2. The Court has jurisdiction in relation to the above dispute, and to rule on the claims
submitted by Iran, pursuant to Article 36 (1) of the Statute of the Court and
Article XXI (2) of the Treaty of Amity.
1284 UNTS 93, II Recueil des traites bilateraux 69, 8 UST 899, TIAS No. 3853. The text of the Treaty of Amity
is appended to this Application as Appendix 1.
- 1-3. Article 36 (1) of the Statute of the Court provides in the relevant part that the Court's
jurisdiction:
"comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specifically
provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in
force."
4. Article XXI (2) of the Treaty of Amity provides:
"Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties as to the interpretation or
application of the present Treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, shall
be submitted to the International Court of Justice, unless the High Contracting
Parties agree to settlement by some other pacific means."
5. The dispute has not been satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, and there has been no
agreement to settle the dispute by some pacific means other than the Treaty of Amity.
III. THE FACTS
6. The USA has adopted, and is implementing, a broad series of measures against Iran and
Iranian companies, including Iranian State-owned companies such as the Central Bank of
Iran (also known as "Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran" or "Bank Markazi"), and their
property, which are in violation of the USA's obligations under the Treaty of Amity. The
USA's violations of the Treaty of Amity include its (a) failure to recognise the separate
juridical status of such entities including Iranian State-owned companies, (b) unfair and
discriminatory treatment of such entities and their property, which impairs the legally
acquired rights and interests of such entities including enforcement of their contractual
rights, (c) failure to accord to such entities and their property the most constant
protection and security that is in no case less than that required by international law,
(d) expropriation of the property of such entities, (e) failure to accord to such entities
freedom of access to the US courts, including the abrogation of the immunities to which
Iran and Iranian State-owned companies, including Bank Markazi, and their property, are
entitled under customary international law and as required by the Treaty of Amity, both
with respect to jurisdictional immunities and immunities from enforcement, (f) failure to
respect the right of such entities to acquire and dispose of property, (g) application of
restrictions to such entities on the making of payments and other transfers of funds to or
from the USA, and (h) interference with the freedom of commerce between the territories
of Iran and the USA.
- 2-7. The USA has for many years adopted the position that Iran may be designated a State
sponsoring terrorism (a designation which Iran strongly contests)? Consequent upon the
enactment of the legislative and executive acts referred to below, a wide series of claims
and enforcement proceedings have been determined or are underway against Iran and
Iranian entities in the USA. As at the date of this application, US courts had awarded
total damages of over US$ 56 billion (consisting in approximately US$ 26 billion in
compensatory damages and US$ 30 billion in punitive damages) against Iran in respect
3
of its alleged involvement in various terrorist acts mainly outside the USA. On 9 March
2016, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered Iran to pay
more than US$ 10.5 billion to families of people killed in the 11 September 2001
4
terrorist attacks, and to a group ofinsurers.
8. On 3 July 2012, the US District Court of Columbia stated that it had issued over
US$ 8.8 billion in judgments against Iran regarding alleged involvement in the deaths of
5
US Marines killed in the bombing of their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983 alone. In
one such set of claims primarily concerning the 1983 Beirut bombing, Deborah D.
Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., the US District Court for the District of
Columbia has ordered Iran in a default judgment to pay in excess of US$ 2.6 billion. The
US District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted summary judgment
to the Peterson claimants and ordered the 'turnover' of approximately US$ 1.75 billion
in cash proceeds of security entitlements previously held in a custodial 'omnibus
account' with Citi Bank N. A. in New York by the Luxembourg-based international
central securities depository Clearstream Banking S.A. to the ultimate benefit of Bank
Markazi (the "Blocked Assets"). On 20 April 2016, the US Supreme Court upheld as
constitutional the relevant enactment specifically abrogating the immunity from
enforcement which would otherwise apply to such assets and interests of Bank Markazi.
On 6 June 2016, the US District Court authorised the payment of the Blocked Assets to
8
the judgment creditors and closed the proceedings.
2
The USA purported to designate Iran as a State sponsoring terrorism on 19 January 1984 (see section 60) of
the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act).
3 A list of damages claims and enforcement proceedings determined, or in the course of being determined, by
the US courts is appended to this Application as Appendix 2. For an earlier list prepared by the USA see
"Terrorism Judgments against Iran: U.S. Court Cases Under the Terrorism Exception to the FSIA (as of August
11, 2015)", publicly available at http://www.kirk.senate.gov/pdfs/AmericanlranianJudgments.pdf (accessed on
16 May 2016).
4 Terrorist Attacks on September II, 200I, US District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated 9 March 2016,03 MLD 1570(GBD) (FM).
5 Brown v. Iran 08-cv-531 (RCL) US District Court for District of Colombia, 3 July 2012 per Chief Judge
Royce C. Lamberth.
6
An account opened in the name of a financial institution through which the assets of the financial institution's
7nderlying customers are commingled.
According to the US District Court's Order of9 July 2013, as at 4 June 2013, the Blocked Assets constituted
US$ I,895,600,513.03.
8 Deborah D. Peterson et al v. Bank Markazi alk!a Central Bank of Iran et al, US District Court for the
Southern District ofNew York, Order authorizing distribution of funds dated 6 June 2016.
- 3- (i) US legislative and executive acts against Iran and Iranian companies
9. In 1996, the USA enacted section 1605(a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act
(the "FSIA"), pursuant to which immunity was removed in respect of claims "in which
money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was
caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the
9
provision of material support or resources ... for such an act ... ".
10. In 2008, a new section 1605A FSIA was enacted to replace and extend section
10
1605(a)(7) FSIA. In particular:
11
a. Section 1605A(a)(l) provides: "NO IMMUNITY - A foreign state shall not be
immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States ... in any case ... in
which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death
that was caused by the act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage
taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act .... "
b. Pursuant to section 1605A(a)(2), US courts will hear a claim under section
1605A(a)(1) where- but only where- the foreign State has been designated as a State
sponsor of terrorism.
c. Pursuant to section 1605A(c), a private right of action is established, i.e. it is
established that a foreign State that is or was at the material time designated by the
USA as a State sponsor of terrorism is liable to US nationals (and certain others) for
personal injury or death caused by acts of torture. Punitive damages may be awarded.
d. Pursuant to section 1605A(g), a lien of lis pendens is established over any real or
personal property within a given US District Court's judicial district.
11. The provisions of section 1605A apply with respect to past actions, and without regard to
defences such as resjudicata, limitation of actions and collateral estoppel. 12
9
In 1996, the USA enacted the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act 1997, which extended the application ofs.1605(a)(7) FSIA to "an official, employee or agent of a foreign
state designated as a state sponsor terrorism designated under section 6U)of the Export Administration Act of
1979 while acting within the scope of his or her office employment, or agency".
10 The text of legislative and executive acts referred to below, including section 1605A, is appended to this
Application as Appendix 3.
11
A "foreign state" is defined in section 1603(a) FSIA as including "a political subdivision of a foreign state or
an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as definein subsection (b)." Section 1603(b) FSIA provides:
"An "agency or instrumentality of a foreign state" means any entity- (1) which is a separate legal person,
corporate or otherwise, and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority
of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and (3)
which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (e) of this title, nor
created under the laws of any third country."
12See section 1083(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, introducing the new
section 1605AFSIA.
- 4-12. As to enforcement against property of the foreign State and State owned-companies, with
respect to section 1605A, section 1610(b)(3) provides:
"In addition to subsection (a), any property in the United States of an agency or
instrumentality of a foreign state engaged in commercial activity in the United
States shall not be immune from attachment in aid of execution, or from
execution, upon a judgment entered by a court of the United States or of a State
after the effective date of this Act, if-
(3) the judgment relates to a claim for which the agency or instrumentality is not
immune by virtue of section 1605A of this chapter or section 1605(a)(7) of this
chapter (as such section was in effect on January 27, 2008), regardless of whether
the property is or was involved in the act upon which the claim is based." 13
13. Further, section 1610(g)(1) FSIA provides:
"... the property of a foreign state against which a judgment is entered under
section 1605A, and the property of an agency or instrumentality of such a state,
including property that is a separate juridical entity or is an interest held directly
or indirectly in a separate juridical entity, is subject to attachment in aid of
execution, and execution, upon that judgment as provided in this section,
regardless of-
(A) the level of economic control over the property by the government of
the foreign state;
(B) whether the profits of the property go to that government;
(C) the degree to which officials of that government manage the property
or otherwise control its daily affairs;
(D) whether that government is the sole beneficiary in interest of the
property; or
(E) whether establishing the property as a separate entity would entitle the
foreign state to benefits in United States courts while avoiding its
obligations." 14(emphasis added)
14. It follows that the property of an agency or instrumentality of Iran may be the subject of
enforcement even though (i) the relevant judgment is against Iran alone, and (ii) the
property is owned by, or to the ultimate benefit of, a separate juridical entity, and (iii) the
Government of Iran has no economic or management control over the separate juridical
entity or its property. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that:
"Congress did not limit the type of property subject to attachment and execution under
§ 1610(g) to property connected to commercial activity in the United States. The only
13
Section 16IO(b)(3) FSIA was introduced by section 502(e)(l) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human
Rights Act 2012 (referred to below).
14Section 16IO(l)(g) FSIA was introduced by section 1083(b)(3)(D) ofthe National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008.
- 5- requirement is that property be "the property of' the foreign state or its
15
instrumentality."
15. Section 1611(b)(1) FSIA provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 1610,
"the property of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for its own account"
shall be immune from attachment and from execution. However, in order to
16
"lessen... enforcement difficulties" ,the USA has deliberately abrogated the protection
which would otherwise be granted to the property of Bank Markazi.
16. Through the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 ("TRIA"), the USA authorised the
enforcement of certain judgments obtained under section 1605(a)(7) FSIA against the
17 18
"blocked assets" of the (alleged) "terrorist party" ,including the blocked assets of any
agency or instrumentality of that (alleged) "terrorist party". Section 201(a) TRIA, as
amended, 19currently provides:
"Notwithstanding any other provlSlon of law, and except as provided in
subsection (b), in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a
terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a terrorist
party is not immune under section 1605A or 1605(a)(7) (as such section was in
effect on January 27, 2008) of title 28, United States Code, the blocked assets of
that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality
of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of
execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory
20
damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable." (emphasis
added)
17. According to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ("the US
District Court"): "TRIA's broad language - "notwithstanding any other provision of
law...in every case" - provides one basis pursuant to which a separate "central bank"
analysis becomes unnecessary; TRIA trumps the central bank provision in 28 U.S.C. §
21
1611(b)(2)."
15
Bennett et a/. v. Bank Melli, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Order and Opinion dated 22 February
1616, at page18 per Circuit Judge Graber.
Bank Markazi, AKA Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson et a/., US Supreme Court, Judgment dated 20 April
2016, at page 3 per Ginsburg J.
17The term "blocked asset" is defined in section 201(d)(2) TRIA as any asset seized or frozen by the Executive
Branch pursuant to either the Trading with the Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers
18t.
The term "terrorist party" is defined in section 201(d)(4) TRIA as including "a foreign state designated a state
sponsor of terrorism under section 6G) of the Export Administration Act of 1979...or section 620A of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961".
19Section 20l(a) TRIA was amended by section 502(e)(2) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights
20t 2012 (referred to below).
Subsection 201(b) establishes scope for a Presidential waiver. There is no relevant waiver so far as concerns
the current Application.
21 Deborah D. Peterson et a/. v. Bank Markazi alkla Central Bank of Iran et a/., US District Court for the
Southern Districtof New York, Opinion and Order dated 28 February 2013, at p.16.
- 6-18. The USA's attempts unlawfully to permit or assist the seizure and attachment of the
assets and interests of Iran and Iranian State-owned companies, including Bank Markazi,
in the USA have intensified.
19. On 5 February 2012, pursuant (inter alia) to the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) and the National Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (the "NDAA"), the President of the USA made Executive Order 13599
22
"Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions". The
purported effect of sections 1(a) and (b) ofExecutive Order 13599 is as follows:
"(a) All property and interests in property of the Government of Iran 23,including
the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter come
within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or
control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, are blocked
and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(b) All property and interests in property of any Iranian financial institution,
including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter
come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the
possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign
branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or
otherwise dealt in." (emphasis added)
20. The effect of Executive Order 13599 appears to be that the pre-condition specified in
section 201 TRIA (that there be relevant blocked assets of the alleged terrorist party,
including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) is to
be considered met with respect to all property and interests in property of Iran and also
any Iranian financial institution, including Bank Markazi, that are in the United States.
According to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York:
"E.O. 13599 had the effect of turning any restrained asserts owned by the Iranian
Government (or any agency or instrumentality thereof) into "Blocked Assets".
As Bank Markazi is the Central Bank of Iran, any of its assets located in the
United States as of February 5, 2012, became "Blocked Assets" pursuant to E.O.
24
13599."
21. On 1 August 2012, the US Congress passed the "Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human
Rights Act 2012" (the "2012 Act"). President Obama signed the 2012 Act into law on
22Executive Order 13599 implements section 1245(c) of the National Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, which provides: "The President shall, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of an
Iranian financial institutionsuch property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the
United States, or are or come within the possession or controlUnited States person"
23Defined at section 7(d) Executive Order 13599 as "the Government oflran, any political subdivision, agency,
or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bankran, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting
for or on behalf of, the Government Iran".
24Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi alk/a Central Bank of Iran et al.,US District Court for the
Southern DistrictfNew York, Opinion and Order dated 28 February 2013, at p.l2.
- 7- 10 August 2012. Pursuant to section 502 of the 2012 Act (also known as 22 U.S.C. §
8772), a definition of "Interests in Blocked Assets" of extraordinary breadth has been
enacted, and with specific reference to the ongoing enforcement proceedings in Deborah
D. Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al. (referred to above):
"(a) INTERESTS IN BLOCKED ASSETS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.- Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding any other
provision of law, including any provision of law relating to sovereign immunity,
and preempting any inconsistent provision of State law, a financial asset that is-
(A) held in the United States for a foreign securities intermediary doing
business in the United States;
25
(B) a blocked asset (whether or not subsequently unblocked) that is
property described in subsection (b); and
(C) equal in value to a financial asset of Iran 26,including an asset of the
central bank or monetary authority of the Government of Iran or any
agency or instrumentality of that Government, that such foreign
securities intermediary or a related intermediary holds abroad,
shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy
any judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages awarded against Iran
for damages for personal injury or death caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial
killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage-taking, or the provision of material support
or resources for such an act.
(b) FINANCIAL ASSETS DESCRIBED.- The financial assets described in this
section are the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case No. 10 Civ. 4518
(BSJ) (GWG), that were restrained by restraining notices and levies secured by
the plaintiffs in those proceedings, as modified by court order dated June 27,
2008, and extended by court orders dated June 23, 2009, May 10, 2010, and June
11, 2010, so long as such assets remain restrained by court order." (emphasis
added)
22. As the US Supreme Court has stated, in its Judgment of 20 April 2016 upholding the
constitutionality of section 502 of the 2012 Act, the purpose and effect of that provision
was "[t]o place beyond dispute the availability of some of the Executive Order No.
25
Defined as any asset seized or frozen by the United States under section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy
Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)) or under section 202 or 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
260 U.S.C. 1701 and 1702)(s502(d)(l)).
The term 'Iran' is defined as the Government of Iran, including the central bank or monetary authority ofthat
Government and any agency or instrumentality of that Government (s502(d)(3)).
- 8- 13599-blocked assets for satisfaction of judgments rendered in terrorism cases"? 7 In a
passage approved by the US Supreme Court, the District Court recognised: "On its face,
the statute sweeps away the FSIA provision setting forth a central bank immunity, 28
U.S.C. § 1611(b)(l); it also eliminates any other federal or state law impediments that
might otherwise exist, so long as the appropriate judicial determination is made...the
2012 Act therefore provides a separate basis - in addition to the FSIA and TRIA - for
execution."28
23. In their joint dissenting opinion in the US Supreme Court's judgment in the Peterson
case (as referred to above), Roberts C.J. and Sotomayer J explained the effect of section
502 as follows:
"Section 8772 does precisely that, changing the law - for these proceedings
alone - simply to guarantee that respondents win. The law serves no other
purpose - a point, indeed, that is hardly in dispute. As the majority
acknowledges, the statute "'sweeps away... any... federal or state law
impediments that might otherwise exist"' to bar respondents from obtaining
Bank Markazi's assets. ...In the District Court, Bank Markazi had invoked
sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28
U.S.C. §1611(b)(l). ...Section 8772(a)(l) eliminates that immunity. Bank
Markazi had argued that its status as a separate juridical entity under federal
common law and international law freed it from liability for Iran's debts.
...Section 8772(d)(3) ensures that the Bank is liable. Bank Markazi had argued
that New York law did not allow respondents to execute their judgments against
the Bank's assets. ...Section 8772(a)(l) makes those assets subject to
29
execution. "
24. The practical impact of the above measures is that the assets and interests of Iran and
Iranian entities are subject to enforcement proceedings in various cases in the USA, even
where such assets or interests:
a. are found to be held by separate juridical entities, such as Bank Markazi, that are not
party to the judgment on liability in respect of which enforcement is sought, and/or
b. are held by Iran or Iranian entities (including Bank Markazi) and benefit from
immunities from enforcement proceedings as a matter of international law, and as
required by the Treaty of Amity.
25. Consequent upon the USA's executive and legislative acts referred to above, a wide
series of claims have been determined, or are underway, against Iran and Iranian entities
27Bank Markazi, AKA Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson et a!, US Supreme Court, Judgment dated 20 April
2016, at page 5 per Ginsburg J.
28Peterson eta! v. Bank Markazi alk/a Central Bank of Iran eta!, US District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Opinion and Order dated 28 February 2013, at p.21; cited in Bank Markazi, AKA Central Bank of
29an v. Peterson eta!, US Supreme Court, Judgment dated 20 April2016, at page 10 per Ginsburg J.
Bank Markazi, AKA Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson et a!, US Supreme Court, Judgment dated 20 April
2016, joint dissenting opinion of Roberts CJ and Sotomayor J, at pages 7-8.
- 9- in the USA. As at the date of this Application, the US courts have awarded
approximately US$ 56 billion against Iran in respect of its alleged involvement in
30
terrorist acts mainly outside the USA. Moreover, the US courts have granted
applications to enforce various of these compensatory awards against the property of
Iranian companies, including Iranian State-owned companies (including Bank Markazi),
which are a separate juridical entities under Iranian law.
(ii) Recent US judicial acts against Iran and Iranian companies
26. In the set of claims comprising Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et
al. (as referred to above), the US courts have issued default judgments ordering Iran to
pay in excess of US$ 2.6 billion, and granted summary judgment permitting execution
against the Blocked Assets pursuant to section 201 TRIA and section 502 of the 2012
Act.
27. In the course ofthese proceedings, the US courts have repeatedly dismissed attempts by
Bank Markazi to rely on the immunities to which such property is entitled (including
under section 1611(b)(1) FSIA), and the protections of the Treaty of Amity (including
the requirement for recognition of the separate juridical status of Iranian companies). In
summary:
a. On 28 February 2013, the US District Court rejected Bank Markazi's motion to
dismiss the enforcement claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and granted
partial summary judgment to the US judgment creditors. Specifically, the US District
Court held that "Congress has abrogated any application of the Treaty in the FSIA
context" and that "TRIA § 201(a), E.O. 13599, and 22 U.S.C. § 8772 expressly pre
empt any immunity" from enforcement. 31
b. On 9 July 2013, the US District Court issued a final partial judgment and made
directions for 'turnover' of the Blocked Assets pursuant to section 201 TRIA and
32
§8772. These directions included making provision for the US judgment creditors to
apply for an order authorising distribution of the Blocked Assets, which were to be
paid into a separate account, within thirty days of that judgment becoming a "Non
Appealable Sustained Judgment". 33 Further, the US District Court issued anti-suit
30A list of damages claims and enforcement proceedings determined, or in the course of being determined, by
theUS courts is appended to this Application as Appendix 2.
31Deborah D. Peterson et a/. v. Bank Markazi a/k/a Central Bank of Iran et a/., US District Court for the
32uthern Districtf New York, Opinion and Order dated 28 February 2013, at p. 52.
Deborah D. Peterson et a/. v. Bank Markazi a/k/a Central Bank of Iran et a/., US District Court for the
Southern Districtf New York, Order dated 9 July 2013 entering partial final judgment and directing turnover
of the blocked assets.
33Defined in §5 of the US District Court's Order of 9 July 2013 as meaning "when the time to file an appeal
from the Partial Judgment has expired or, if any appeal is filed and not dismissed, after the Partial Judgment is
upheld in all material respects on appeal or after review by writ of certiorari and is no longer subject to review
on appeal or reviewy writ of certiorari."
- 10- injunctions restrammg Iran and Bank Markazi from initiating any claim to the
Blocked Assets in another jurisdiction? 4
c. Bank Markazi appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the
grounds, inter alia, that enforcement against the Blocked Assets pursuant to section
201 TRIA and/or §8772 was precluded by the Treaty of Amity and section
§1611(b)(I) FSIA. On 9 July 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
dismissed Bank Markazi's appeal, finding that it did not need to resolve the dispute
regarding immunity under the TRIA because Congress "has changed the law
35
governing this case" by enacting §8772. Even assuming that this provision is
inconsistent with the USA's obligations under the Treaty of Amity (which the Court
of Appeals found it was not), "§ 8772 would have to be read to abrogate any
36
inconsistent provisions in the Treaty".
d. Bank Markazi appealed to the US Supreme Court on the ground that section 502 of
the 2012 Act is unconstitutional. On 20 April 2016, the US Supreme Court dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Second
37
Circuit, upholding the lawfulness of section 502 under the US Constitution. On 23
May 2016, the US Supreme Court issued a certified copy of its judgment and order to
the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
e. On 6 June 2016, the US District Court authorised the payment of the Blocked Assets
to the US judgment creditors and closed the proceedings. 38
28. Iran maintains that the assets of Iranian financial institutions and other Iranian companies
have already been seized, or are in the process of being seized and transferred, or at risk
of being seized and transferred, in a number of other proceedings. For example:
a. On 22 February 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the
judgment creditors in Bennett et al. v. Bank Melli are entitled, pursuant to section
201(a) TRIA, to attach to approximately US$ 17.6 million contractually owed to Bank
Melli, an instrumentality of Iran and an Iranian State-owned company, by Visa Inc.
and Franklin Resources Inc. in respect of the use of Visa credit cards in Iran? If Bank
Melli's pending petition for a rehearing is refused, the US District Court for the
34Deborah D. Peterson et a!. v. Bank Markazi alk/a Central Bank of Iran et al., US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Order dated 9 July 2013 entering partial final judgment and directing turnover
of the blocked assets, at§§ 10 and 13.
35Deborah D. Peterson et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
36inoion dated 9 July 2014 at page 5.
Deborah D. Peterson et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
Opinoion dated 9 July 2014 at page 7.
37Bank Markazi, a/k/a Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson et al, US Supreme Court, Opinion dated 20 April 2016.
38 Deborah D. Peterson et al v. Bank Markazi a/kla Central Bank of Iran et al, US District Court for the
Southern District ofNew York, Order authorizing distribution of funds dated 6 June 2016.
39
Bennett et al v. Bank Melli et al, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Order and Opinion dated 22
February 2016.
- 11 - Northern District of California is expected to order 'turnover' of the funds owed to
Bank Melli to the judgment creditors.
b. On 15 June 2010, in Weinstein eta!. v. Bank Melli et al., the US Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit held that the judgment creditors were entitled, pursuant to
section 201(a) TRIA, to the attachment and sale of a building in New York owned by
40
Bank Melli. The US court appointed a receiver and the property was sold on
22 December 2010 for a sale price of approximately US$ 1.6 million. On 19
December 2012, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered
that the proceeds be disbursed to the judgment creditors. 41
c. On 10 August 2011, in Heiser eta!. v. Iran, the US District Court for the District of
Columbia held that the sum of approximately US$ 616,500 owed by the US
telecommunications company Sprint to the Iranian Telecommunication Infrastructure
Co, which the US District Court found was an Iranian State-owned company and an
instrumentality of Iran, is subject to attachment and execution pursuant to
section 161O(g) FSIA, and ordered that the funds be turned over to the judgment
42
creditors.
29. The effect of the enactments and decisions set out above is to confirm the USA's
unlawful removal of the jurisdictional immunities and immunities from enforcement to
which Iran and Iranian State-owned companies are entitled under both customary
international law and the Treaty of Amity.
30. Specifically, the various decisions of the US courts in the Peterson case (as referred to
above) confirm that section 502 of the 2012 Act has been drafted precisely to secure
enforcement against Bank Markazi's interest in the security entitlements previously held
by Clearstream. Pursuant to the US Supreme Court's decision in Bank Markazi v.
Peterson et al., the US District Court has ordered that the Blocked Assets be paid out to
the judgment creditors. As a result, there is a real and immediate risk that such funds will
be dissipated.
31. As a result of the USA's executive, legislative and judicial acts referred to above, Iran
and Iranian entities are suffering ongoing harm, and face actual and imminent seizure of
assets and interests and/or the enforcement of judgments against third parties (such as
international central securities depositories holding funds or security entitlements in
banks in the USA to the ultimate benefit of Iran and Iranian entities).
40Weinsteinet al v. Bank Melli etUS Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Opinion dated 15 June 2010.
41Weinstein et al v. Bank Melli et US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Order dated 19
42cember 2012.
Estate of Michael Heiser et al v. Islamic Republic of IUS District Court for the District of Columbia,
Opinion and Order dated 10 August 2011.
- 12- IV. BREACH OF THE TREATY OF AMITY
32. As will be more fully developed in a subsequent stage of the proceedings, the measures
outlined above breach a number of provisions of the Treaty of Amity, including in
particular those expressly referred to below.
a. Pursuant to Article III (1) of the Treaty of Amity:
"Companies constituted under the applicable laws and regulations of either
High Contracting Party shall have their juridical status recognized within the
territoriesof the other High Contracting Party. It is understood, however, that
recognition of juridical status does not of itself confer rights upon companies
to engage in the activities for which they are organized. As used in the present
Treaty, "companies" means corporations, partnerships, companies and other
associations, whether or not with limited liability and whether or not for
pecuniary profit."
It follows that the USA is obliged to recognise the juridical status of Bank Markazi
(which is a "company", for the purposes of Article III (1) of the Treaty of Amity,
constituted with its own legal personality pursuant to the Banking and Monetary Act
of Iran 1960 as amended in 1972) and all other Iranian companies, including Iranian
State-owned companies. The right to recognition of juridical status in Article III (1)
is not qualified in any way; and yet the rights of Bank Markazi and other Iranian
entities, as juridical persons distinct from Iran, have been or are being abrogated by
section 1610(g)(l) FSIA, section 201(a) TRIA, Executive Order 13599 and section
502 of the 2012 Act, while as a practical matter the assets and interests of Bank
Markazi and other Iranian financial institutions are under real threat of seizure and
transfer by the US courts. Specifically, the Blocked Assets of Bank Markazi at issue
in the Peterson proceedings (as referred to above) have been seized and transferred
to the US judgment creditors by the US courts, and now face the real and imminent
threat of being dissipated.
b. Pursuant to Article III (2) of the Treaty of Amity:
"Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall have freedom
of access to the courts of justice and administrative agencies within the
territoriesof the other High Contracting Party, in all degrees of jurisdiction,
both in defense and pursuit of their rights, to the end that prompt and impartial
justice be done. Such access shall be allowed, in any event, upon terms no less
favorable than those applicable to nationals and companies of such other High
Contracting Party or of any third country. It is understood that companies not
engaged in activities within the country shall enjoy the right of such access
without any requirement of registration or domestication."
In denying to Bank Markazi and other Iranian State-owned companies the
immunities that they would otherwise enjoy as a matter of US and international law
- 13- (and that State-owned companies ofthird States, including central banks, enjoy), the
USA violates their right of freedom of access to US courts with respect to their
ability to defend proceedings brought against them and to pursue their right to
immunity both from jurisdiction and enforcement, and thereby breaches Article III
(2) of the Treaty of Amity. Article XI (4) confirms that "[n]o enterprise of either
High Contracting Party, including corporations, associations, and government
agencies and instrumentalities, which is publicly owned or controlled shall, if it
engages in commercial, industrial, shipping or other business activities within the
territoriesof the other High Contracting Party, claim or enjoy, either for itself or for
its property, immunity therein from taxation, suit, execution of judgment or other
liability to which privately owned and controlled enterprises are subject therein."
This provision is aimed at judgments against enterprises, as opposed to a High
Contracting Party, in respect of their commercial acts. It follows that Iran and
Iranian State-owned companies are entitled to immunity in respect of acts jure
imperii.
In addition, the enactment of section 502 of the 2012 Act during the course of the
Peterson case retroactively changed the law by depriving Bank Markazi of defences
upon which it had previously relied, including under US law, and preventing
impartial justice being done.
c. Pursuant to Article IV (1) ofthe Treaty of Amity:
"Each High Contracting Party shall at all times accord fair and equitable
treatment to nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party, and
to their property and enterprises; shall refrain from applying unreasonable or
discriminatory measures that would impair their legally acquired rights and
interests; and shall assure that their lawful contractual rights are afforded
effective means of enforcement, in conformity with the applicable laws."
The treatment currently being accorded to Bank Markazi and other Iranian
companies, including Iranian financial institutions, and their respective assets and
interests, is unfair and inequitable and also discriminatory and unreasonable, and
impairs the legally acquired rights and interests of such entities including
enforcement of their contractual rights, and thus is in breach of Article IV (1) of the
Treaty of Amity. For example, section 502 of the 2012 Act effected a retroactive
change of the law, which deprived Bank Markazi of defences upon which it had
previously relied, including under US law, and which is explicitly limited to the
Peterson proceedings against Iran (as referred to above).
d. Pursuant to Article IV (2) of the Treaty of Amity:
"Property of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party,
including interests in property, shall receive the most constant protection and
security within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, in no case
- 14- less than that required by international law. Such property shall not be taken
except for a public purpose, nor shall it be taken without the prompt payment
of just compensation. Such compensation shall be in an effectively realizable
form and shall represent the full equivalentof the property taken; and adequate
provision shall have been made at or prior to the time of taking for the
determination and payment thereof."
Article IV (2) establishes a right to most constant protection and security that is "in
no case less than that required by international law", thus incorporating relevant
customary international law protections, including those pertaining to the immunity
of State-owned companies and their property. In addition, Article IV (2) establishes
a separate protection from takings (which is correctly interpreted to include takings
consequential upon judicial acts). Both these elements of Article IV (2) have been,
and are in the process of being, breached by the USA in respect of its treatment of
Iranian companies, including Iranian State-owned companies such as Bank Markazi,
and their property. As a practical matter the Blocked Assets of Bank Markazi at
issue in the Peterson proceedings (as referred to above) have been seized and
transferred to the US judgment creditors by the US courts, and now face the real and
imminent threat of being dissipated.
e. Pursuant to Article V (1) of the Treaty of Amity:
"Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted,
within the territories of the other High Contracting Party: (a) to lease, for
suitable periods of time, real property needed for their residence or for the
conduct of activities pursuant to the present Treaty; (b) to purchase or
otherwise acquire personal property of all kinds; and (c) to dispose of property
of all kinds by sale, testament or otherwise. The treatment accorded in these
respects shall in no event be less favorable than that accorded nationals and
companies of any third country."
The treatment currently being accorded to Bank Markazi and other Iranian
companies, including Iranian financial institutions, and their respective property,
interferes with their rights under Article (1) of the Treaty of Amity.
f. Pursuant to Article VII (1) of the Treaty of Amity:
"Neither High Contracting Party shall apply restrictions on the making of
payments, remittances, and other transfers of funds to or from the territories of
the other High Contracting Party, except (a) to the extent necessary to assure
the availability of foreign exchange for payments for goods and services
essential to the health and welfareof its people, or (b) in the case of a member
of the International Monetary Fund, restrictions specifically approved by the
Fund."
- 15- The treatment currently being accorded to Bank Markazi and other Iranian
companies, including Iranian financial institutions, and their respective property,
interferes with their rights under ArticleII (1) of the Treaty of Amity.
g. Pursuant to Article X (1) of the Treaty of Amity:
"Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there shall be
freedom of commerce and navigation."
The treatment currently being afforded to Iran, Bank Markazi and other Iranian
companies, including Iranian financial institutions, and their respective property,
interferes with the right to freedom of commerce between the territories of Iran and
the USA under Article X (1) ofthe Treaty of Amity.
V. JUDGMENT REQUESTED
33. On the basis of the foregoing, and while reserving the right to supplement, amend or
modify the present Application in the course of further proceedings in the case, Iran
respectfully requests the Court to adjudge, order and declare as follows:
a. That the Court has jurisdiction under the Treaty of Amity to entertain the dispute and
to rule upon the claims submitted by Iran;
b. That by its acts, including the acts referred to above and in particular its (a) failure to
recognise the separate juridical status (including the separate legal personality) of all
Iranian companies including Bank Markazi, and (b) unfair and discriminatory
treatment of such entities, and their property, which impairs the legally acquired rights
and interests of such entities including enforcement of their contractual rights, and (c)
failure to accord to such entities and their property the most constant protection and
security that is in no case less than that required by international law, (d)
expropriation of the property of such entities, and (e) failure to accord to such entities
freedom of access to the US courts, including the abrogation of the immunities to
which Iran and Iranian State-owned companies, including Bank Markazi, and their
property, are entitled under customary international law and as required by the Treaty
of Amity, and (f) failure to respect the right of such entities to acquire and dispose of
property, and (g) application of restrictions to such entities on the making of payments
and other transfers of funds to or from the USA, and (h) interference with the freedom
of commerce, the USA has breached its obligations to Iran, inter alia, under Articles
III (1), III (2), IV (1), IV (2), V (1), VII (1) and X (1) ofthe Treaty of Amity;
c. That the USA shall ensure that no steps shall be taken based on the executive,
legislative and judicial acts (as referred to above) at issue in this case which are, to the
- 16- extent determined by the Court, inconsistent with the obligations of the USA to Iran
under the Treaty of Amity;
d. That Iran and Iranian State-owned companies are entitled to immunity from the
jurisdiction of the US courts and in respect of enforcement proceedings in the USA,
and that such immunity must be respected by the USA (including US courts), to the
extent established as a matter of customary international law and required by the
Treaty of Amity;
e. That the USA (including the US courts) is obliged to respect the juridical status
(including the separate legal personality), and to ensure freedom of access to the US
courts, of all Iranian companies, including State-owned companies such as Bank
Markazi, and that no steps based on the executive, legislative and judicial acts (as
referred to above), which involve or imply the recognition or enforcement of such acts
shall be taken against the assets or interests of Iran or any Iranian entity or national;
f. That the USA is under an obligation to make full reparations to Iran for the violation
of its international legal obligations in an amount to be determined by the Court at a
subsequent stage of the proceedings. Iran reserves the right to introduce and present to
the Court in due course a precise evaluation of the reparations owed by the USA; and
g. Any other remedy the Court may deem appropriate.
34. For the purposes of Article 31(3) ofthe Statute and Article 35(1) ofthe Rules of Court,
Iran declares its intention to exercise the right to designate a Judge hoc.
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has designated the undersigned as its Agent
for the purposes of these proceedings. All communications relating to this case should be sent
to the Agent Bureau of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, De Werf 15, 4th Floor,
2544 EH, Den Haag.
Agent of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran
Date: 14 June 2016
- 17-APPENDIX 1Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights
between
Iran and the United States of America
15 August 1955http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/7211.pdf
Attachment
[The following texts are taken from the United Nations,
Treaty Series, Vol. 284, pp. 93-137. [Note by the Registry]]
No. 4132
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IRAN
TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS,
AND CONSULAR RIGHTS.
SIGNED AT TEHRAN, ON 15 AUGUST 1955
Official texts: English and Persian*.
[*not reproduced on website]
Registered by the United States of America on 20 December 1957.
No. 4132. TREATY OF AMITY, ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR
RIGHTS
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND IRAN. SIGNED AT TEHRAN, ON 15 AUGUST 1955
[Came into force on 16 June 1957, one month after the day of exchange of the instruments of
ratification at Tehran on 16 May 1957, in accordance with article XXITI.]The United States of America and Iran, desirous of emphasizing the friendly relations which
have long prevailed between their peoples, of reaffirming the high principles in the regulation
of human affairs to which they are committed, of encouraging mutually beneficial trade and
investments and closer economic intercourse generally between their peoples, and of
regulating consular relations, have resolved to conclude, on the basis of reciprocal equality of
treatment, a Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, and have appointed
as their Plenipotentiaries:
The President of the United States of America:
Mr. Selden Chapin, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
the United States of America at Tehran; and
His Imperial Majesty, the Shah oflran:
His Excellency Mr. Mostafa Samiy, Under Secretary of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs;
Who, having communicated to each other their full powers found to be in due form, have
agreed upon the following articles:
Article I
There shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United States of
America and Iran.
Article II
1. Nationals of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted, upon terms no less favorable
than those accorded to nationals of any third country, to enter and remain in the territories of
the other High Contracting Party for the purpose of carrying on trade between their own
country and the territories of such other High Contracting Party and engaging in related
commercial activities, and for the purpose of developing and directing the operations of an
enterprise in which they have invested, or in which they are actively in the process of
investing, a substantial amount of capital.
2. Nationals of either High Contracting Party within the territories of the other High
Contracting Party shall, either individually or through associations, and so long as their
activities are not contrary to public order, safety or morals: (a) be permitted to travel therein
freely and reside at places of their choice; (b) enjoy freedom of conscience and the right to
hold religious services; (c) be permitted to engage in philanthropic, educational and scientific
activities; and (d)have the right to gather and transmit information for dissemination to the
public abroad, and otherwise to communicate with other persons inside and outside such
territories. They shall also be permitted to engage in the practice of professions for which they
have qualified under the applicable legal provisions governing admission to professions.
3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present Article shall be subject to the right of
either High Contracting Party to apply measures which are necessary to maintain public order,
and to protect public health, morals and safety, including the right to expel, to exclude or to
limit the movement of aliens on the said grounds. 4. Nationals of either High Contracting Party shall receive the most constant protection and
security within the territories of the other High Contracting Party. When any such national is
in custody, he shall in every respect receive reasonable and humane treatment; and, on his
demand, the diplomatic or consular representative of his country shall without unnecessary
delay be notified and accorded full opportunity to safeguard his interests He shall be promptly
informed of the accusations against him, allowed all facilities reasonably necessary to his
defense and given a prompt and impartial disposition of his case.
Article III
1. Companies constituted under the applicable laws and regulations of either High Contracting
Party shall have their juridical status recognized within the territories of the other High
Contracting Party. It is understood, however, that recognition of juridical status does not of
itself confer rights upon companies to engage in the activities for which they are organized.
As used in the present Treaty," companies" means corporations, partnerships, companies and
other associations, whether or not with limited liability and whether or not for pecuniary
profit.
2. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall have freedom of access to
the courts of justice and administrative agencies within the territories of the other High
Contracting Party, in all degrees of jurisdiction, both in defense and pursuit of their rights, to
the end that prompt and impartial justice be done. Such access shall be allowed, in any event,
upon terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals and companies of such other
High Contracting Party or of any third country. It is understood that companies not engaged in
activities within the country shall enjoy the right of such access without any requirement of
registrar on or domestication.
3. The private settlement of disputes of a civil nature, involving nationals and companies of
either High Contracting Party, shall not be discouraged within the territories of the other High
Contracting Party; and, in cases of such settlement by arbitration, neither the alienage of the
arbitrators nor the foreign situs of the arbitration proceedings shall of themselves be a bar to
the enforceability of awards duly resulting therefrom.
ArticleW
1. Each High Contracting Party shall at all times accord fair and equitable treatment to
nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party, and to their property and
enterprises; shall refrain from applying unreasonable or discriminatory measures that would
impair their legally acquired rights and interests; and shall assure that their lawful contractual
rights are afforded effective means of enforcement, in conformity with the applicable laws.
2. Property of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party, including interests in
property, shall receive the most constant protection and security within territories of the other
High Contracting Party, in no case less than that required by international lain Such property
shall not be taken except for a public purpose, nor shall it be taken without the prompt
payment of just compensation. Such compensation shall be in an effectively realizable form
and shall represent the full equivalent of the property taken; and adequate provision shall have
been made at or prior to the time of taking for the determination and payment thereof3. The dwellings, ounces, warehouses, factories and other premises of nationals and
companies of either High Contracting Party located within the territories of the other High
Contracting Party shall not be subject to entry or molestation without just cause. Official
searches and examinations of such premises and their contents, shall be made only according
to law and with careful regard for the convenience of the occupants and the conduct of
business.
4. Enterprises which nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party are permitted
to establish or acquire, within the territoriesof the other High Contracting Party, shall be
permitted freely to conduct their activities therein, upon terms no less favorable than other
enterprises of whatever nationality engaged in similar activities. Such nationals and
companies shall enjoy the right to continued control and management of such enterprises; to
engage attorneys, agents, accountants and other technical experts, executive personnel,
interpreters and other specialized employees of their choice; and to do all other things
necessary or incidental to the effective conduct of their affairs.
Article V
1.Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party snail be permitted, within the
territoriesof the other High Contracting Party: (a) to lease, for suitable periods of time, real
property needed for their residence or for the conduct of activities pursuant to the present
Treaty; (b) to purchase or otherwise acquire personal property of all kinds; and (c) to dispose
of property of all kinds by sale, testament or otherwise. The treatment accorded in these
respects shall in no event be less favorable than that accorded nationals and companies of any
third country.
2. Upon compliance with the applicable laws and regulations respecting registration and other
formalities, nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded
within the territoriesof the other High Contracting Party effective protection in the exclusive
use of inventions, trade marks and trade names.
Article VI
1. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall not be subject to the
payment of taxes, fees or charges within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, or
to requirements with respect to the levy and collection thereof, more burdensome than those
borne by nationals, residents and companies of any third country. In the case of nationals of
either High Contracting Party residing within the territories of the other High Contracting
Party, and of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party engaged in trade or
other gainful pursuit or in non-profit activities therein, such payments and requirements shall
not be more burdensome than those borne by nationals and companies of such other High
Contracting Party.
2. Each High Contracting Party, however, reserves the right to: (a) extend specific tax
advantages only on the basis of reciprocity, or pursuant to agreements for the avoidance of
double taxation or the mutual protection of revenue; and (b) apply special requirements as to
the exemptions of a personal nature allowed to non-residents in connection with income and
inheritance taxes.3. Companies of either High Contracting Party shall not be subject, within the territories of
the other High Contracting Party, to taxes upon any income, transactions or capital not
attributable to the operations and investment thereof within such territories.
Article VII
1. Neither High Contracting Party shall apply restrictions on the making of payments,
remittances, and other transfers of funds to or from the territories of the other High
Contracting Party, except (a) to the extent necessary to assure the availability of foreign
exchange for payments for goods and services essential to the health and welfare of its people,
or (b) in the case of a member of the International Monetary Fund, restrictions specifically
approved by the Fund.
2. If either High Contracting Party applies exchange restrictions, it shall promptly make
reasonable provision for the withdrawal, in foreign exchange in the currency of the other High
Contracting Party, of: (a) the compensation referred to in Article lV, paragraph 2, of the
present Treaty, (b) earnings, whether in the form of salaries, interest, dividends, commissions,
royalties, payments for technical services, or otherwise, and (c) amounts for amortization of
loans, depreciation of direct investments and capital transfers, giving consideration to special
needs for other transactions. If more than one rate of exchange is in force, the rate applicable
to such withdrawals shall be a rate which is specifically approved by the International
Monetary Fund for such transactions or, in the absence of a rate so approved, an effective rate
which, inclusive of any taxes or surcharges on exchange transfers, is just and reasonable.
3. Either High Contracting Party applying exchange restrictions shall in general administer
them in a manner not to influence disadvantageously the competitive position of the
commerce, transport or investment of capital of the other High Contracting Party in
comparison with the commerce, transport or investment of capital of any third country; and
shall afford such other High Contracting Party adequate opportunity for consultation at any
time regarding the application of the present Article.
Article VIII
1. Each High Contracting Party shall accord to products of the other High Contracting Party,
from whatever place and by whatever type of carrier arriving, and to products destined for
exportation to the territories of such other High Contracting Party, by whatever route and by
whatever type of carrier, treatment no less favorable than that accorded like products of or
destined for exportation to any third country, in all matters relating to: (a) duties, other
charges, regulations and formalities, on or in connection with importation and exportation;
and (b) internal taxation, sale, distribution, storage and use. The same rule shall apply with
respect to the international transfer of payments for imports and exports.
2 Neither High Contracting Party shall impose restrictions or prohibitions on the importation
of any product of the other High Contracting Party or on the exportation of any product to the
territories of the other High Contracting Party, unless the importation of the like product of, or
the exportation of the like product to, all third countries is similarly restricted or prohibited.
3. If either High Contracting Party imposes quantitative restrictions on the importation or
exportation of any product in which the other High Contracting Party has an important
interest: (a) It shall as a general rule give prior public notice of the total amount of the
product, by quantity or value, that may be imported or exported during a
specified period, and of any change in such amount or period; and
(b) If it makes allotments to any third country, it shall afford such other High
Contracting Party a share proportionate to the amount of the product, by
quantity or value, supplied by or to it during a previous representative period?
due consideration being given to any special factors affecting the trade in such
product.
4. Either High Contracting Party may impose prohibitions or restrictions on sanitary or other
customary grounds of a non-commercial nature, or in the interest of preventing deceptive or
unfair practices, provided such prohibitions or restrictions do not arbitrarily discriminate
against the commerce of the other High Contracting Party.
5. Either High Contracting Party may adopt measures necessary to assure the utilization of
accumulated inconvertible currencies or to deal with a stringency of foreign exchange.
However, such measures shall deviate no more than necessary from a policy designed to
promote the maximum development of non-discriminatory multilateral tirade and to expedite
the attainment of a balance-of-payments position which will obviate the necessity of such
measures.
6. Each High Contracting Party reserves the right to accord special advantages: (a) to products
of its national fisheries, (b) to adjacent countries in order to facilitate frontier tragic, or (c) by
virtue of a customs union or free trade area of which either High Contracting Party, after
consultation with the other High Contracting Party, may become a member. Each High
Contracting Party, moreover, reserves rights and obligations it may have under the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [See United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 284, p. 76, footnote
2.], and special advantages it may accord pursuant thereto.
Article IX
1. In the administration of its customs regulations and procedures, each High Contracting
Party shall: (a) promptly publish all requirements of general application affecting importation
and exportation; (b) apply such requirements in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;
(c) refrain, as a general practice, from enforcing new or more burdensome requirements until
after public notice thereof; (d) provide an appeals procedure by which prompt and impartial
review of administrative action in customs matters can be obtained; and (e) not impose greater
than nominal penalties for infractions resulting front clerical errorsor from mistakes made in
good faith.
2. Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded treatment no
less favorable than that accorded nationals and companies of the other High Contracting
Party, or of any third country, with respect to all matters relating to importation and
exportation.
3. Neither High Contracting Party shall impose any measure of a discriminatory nature that
hinders or prevents the importer or exporter of products of either country from obtaining
marine insurance on such products in companies of either High Contracting Party. Article X
1. Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there shall be freedom of
commerce and navigation.
2. Vessels under the flag of either High Contracting Party, and carrying the papers required by
its law in proof of nationality, shall be deemed to he vessels of that High Contracting Party
both on the high seas and within the ports, places and waters of the other High Contracting
Party.
3. Vessels of either High Contracting Party shall have liberty, on equal terms with vessels of
the other High Contracting Party and on equal terms with vessels of any third country, to
come with their cargoes to all ports, places and waters of such other High Contracting Party
open to foreign commerce and navigation. Such vessels and cargoes shall in all respects be
accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment within the ports, places and
Raters of such other High Contracting Party; but each High Contracting Party may reserve
exclusive rights and privileges to its own vessels with respect to the coasting trade, inland
navigation and national fisheries.
4. Vessels of either High Contracting Party shall be accorded national treatment and most
favored-nation treatment by the other High Contracting Party with respect to the right to carry
all products that may be carried by vessel to or from the territories of such other High
Contracting Party; and such products shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that
accorded like products carried in vessels of such other High Contracting Party, with respect
to: (a) duties and charges of all kinds, (b) the administration ofthe customs, and (c) bounties,
drawbacks and other privileges ofthis nature.
5. Vessels of either High Contracting Party that are in distress shall be permitted to take
refuge in the nearest port or haven of the other High Contracting Party, and shall receive
friendly treatment and assistance.
6. The term "vessels", as used herein, means all types of vessels, whether privately owned or
operated, or publicly owned or operated; but this term does not, except with reference to
paragraphs 2 and 5 of the present Article, include fishing vessels or vessels of war.
Article XI
1.Each High Contracting Party undertakes (a) that enterprises owned or controlled by its
Government, and that monopolies or agencies granted exclusive or special privileges within
its territories, shall make their purchases and sales involving either imports or exports
affecting the commerce of the other High Contracting Party solely in accordance with
commercial considerations, including price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation
and other conditions of purchase or sale; and (b) that the nationals, companies and commerce
of such other High Contracting Party shall be afforded adequate opportunity, in accordance
with customary business practice, to compete for participation in such purchases and sales.
2. Each High Contracting Party shall accord to the nationals, companies and commerce of the
other High Contracting Party fair and equitable treatment, as compared with that accorded to
the nationals, companies and commerce of any third country, with respect to: (a) the
governmental purchase of supplies, (b) the awarding of government contracts, and (c) the saleof any service sold by the Government or by any monopoly or agency granted exclusive or
special privileges.
3. The High Contracting Parties recognize that conditions of competitive equality should be
maintained in situations in which publicly owned or controlled trading or manufacturing
enterprises of either High Contracting Party engage in competition, within the territories
thereof, with privately owned and controlled enterprises of nationals and companies of the
other High Contracting Party. Accordingly, such private enterprises shall, in such situations,
be entitled to the benefit of any special advantages of an economic nature accorded such
public enterprises, whether in the nature of subsidies, tax exemptions or otherwise. The
foregoing rule shall not apply, however, to special advantages given in connection with: (a)
manufacturing goods for government use, or supplying goods and services to the Government
for government use; or (b) supplying at prices substantially below competitive prices, the
needs of particular population groups for essential goods and services not otherwise
practically obtainable by such groups.
4. No enterprise of either High Contracting Party, including corporations, associations, and
government agencies and instrumentalities, which is publicly owned or controlled shall, if it
engages in commercial, industrial, shipping or other business activities within the territories
of the other High Contracting Party, claim or enjoy, either for itself or for its property,
immunity therein from taxation, suit, execution of judgment or other liability to which
privately owned and controlled enterprises are subject therein.
Article XII
Each High Contracting Party shall have the right to send to the other High Contracting Party
consular representatives, who, havmg presented their credentials and having been recognized
in a consular capacity, shall be provided, free of charge, with exequaturs or other
authorization.
Article XIII
1. Consular representatives of each High Contracting Party shall be permitted to reside in the
territory of the other High Contracting Party at the places where consular officers of any third
country are permitted to reside and at other places by consent of the other High Contracting
Party. Consular Officers and employees shall enjoy the privileges and immunities accorded to
officers and employees of their rank or status by general international usage and shall be
permitted to exercise all functions which are in accordance with such usage; in any event they
shall be treated, subject to reciprocity, in a manner no less favorable than similar officers and
employees of any third country.
2. The consular offices shall not be entered by the police or other local authorities without the
consent of the consular officer, except that in the case of fire or other disaster, or if the local
authorities have probable cause to believe that a crime of violence has been or is about to be
committed in the consular office, consent to entry shall be presumed. In no case shall they
examine or seize the papers there deposited.
Article XIV1. All furniture, equipment and supplies consigned to or withdrawn from customs custody for
a consular or diplomatic office of either High Contracting Party for official use shall be
exempt within the territories of the other High Contracting Party from all customs duties and
internal revenue or other taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.
2. The baggage, effects and other articles imported exclusively for the personal use of
consular officers and diplomatic and consular employees and members of their families
residing with them, who are nationals of the sending state and are not engaged in any private
occupation for gain in the territories of the receiving state, shall be exempt from all customs
duties and internal revenue or other taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation. Such
exemptions shall be granted with respect to the property accompanying the person entitled
thereto on first arrival and on subsequent arrivals, and to that consigned to such officers and
employees during the period in which they continue in status.
3. It is understood, however, that; (a) paragraph 2 of the present Article shall apply as to
consular officers and diplomatic and consular employees only when their names have been
communicated to the appropriate authorities of the receiving state and they have been duly
recognized in their official capacity; (b) in the case of consignments, either High Contracting
Party may, as a condition to the granting of exemption, require that a notification of any such
consignment be given, in a prescribed manner; and (c) nothing herein authorizes importations
specifically prohibited by law,
Article XV
1. The Government of either High Contracting Party may, in the territory of the other, acquire,
own, lease for any period oftime, or otherwise hold and occupy, such lands, buildings, and
appurtenances as may be necessary and appropriate for governmental, other than military,
purposes. If under the local law the permission of the local authorities must be obtained as a
prerequisite to any such acquiring or holding, such permission shall be given on request.
2. Lands and buildings situated in the territories of either High Contracting Party, of which the
other High Contracting Party is the legal or equitable owner and which are used exclusively
for governmental purposes by that owner, shall be exempt from taxation of every kind,
national, state, provincial and municipal, other than assessments levied for services or local
public improvements by which the premises are benefited.
Article XVI
1. No tax or other similar charge of any kind, whether of a national, state, provincial, or
municipal nature, shall be levied or collected the territories of the receiving state in respect of
the official emoluments, salaries, wages or allowances received (a) by a consular officer of
the sending state as compensation for his consular services, or (b) by a consular employee
thereof as compensation for his services at a consulate. Likewise, consular officers and
employees, who are permanent employees of the sending state and are not engaged in private
occupation for gain within the territories of the receiving state, shall be exempt from all taxes
or other similar charges, the legal incidence of which would otherwise fall upon such officers
or employees.
2. The preceding paragraph shall not apply in respect of taxes and other similar charges upon:
(a) the ownership or occupation of immovable property situated within the territories of thereceiving state; (b) income derived from sources within such territories (except the
compensation mentioned in the preceding paragraph); or (e) the passing of property at death.
3. The provisions of the present Article shall have like application to diplomatic offers and
employees, who shall in addition be accorded all exemptions allowed them under general
international usage
Article XVII
The exemptions provided for in Articles XIV and XVI shall not apply to nationals of the
sending state who are also nationals of the receiving state, or to any other person who is a
national of the receiving state, nor to persons having immigrant status who have been lawfully
admitted for permanent residence in the receiving state,
Article XVIII
Consular officers and employees are not subject to local jurisdiction for acts done in their
official character and within the scope of their authority No consular offer or employee shall
be required to present his official files before the courts or to make declaration with respect to
their contents.
Article XIX
A consular officer shall have the right within his district to: (a) interview, communicate with,
assist and advise any national of the sending state; (b) inquire into any incidents which have
occurred affecting the interests of any such national; and (e) assist any such national in
proceedings before or in relations with the authorities of the receiving state and, where
necessary, arrange for legal assistance to which he is entitled. A national of the sending state
shall have the right at all times to communicate with a consular officer of his country and,
unless subject to lawful detention, to visit him at the consular office.
Article XX
1. The present Treaty shall not preclude the application of measures:
(a) regulating the importation or exportation of gold or silver;
(b) relating to fissionable materials, the radio-active by-products thereof, or the
sources thereof;
(c) regulating the production of or traffic in arms, ammunition and implements
of war, or traffic in other materials carried on directly or indirectly for the
pmpose of supplying a military establishment; and
(d) necessary to fulfill the obligations of a High Contracting Party for the
maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, or necessary to
protect its essential security interests.
2. The present Treaty does not accord any rights to engage in political activities.3. The stipulations of the present Treaty shall not extend to advantages accorded by the
United States of America or its Territories and possessions, irrespective of any future change
in their political status, to one another, to the Republic of Cuba, to the Republic ofthe
Philippines, to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or to the Panama Canal Zone.
4 The provisions of Article II, Paragraph 1, shall be construed as extending to nationals of
either High Contracting Party seeking to enter the territories of the other High Contracting
Party solely for the purpose of developing and directing the operations of an enterprise in the
territoriesof such other High Contracting Party in which their employer has invested or is
actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital: provided that such
employer is a national or company of the same nationality as the applicant and that the
applicant is employed by such national or company in a responsible capacity.
Article XXI
1. Each High Contracting Party shall accord sympathetic consideration to, and shall afford
adequate opportunity for consultation regarding, such representations as the other High
Contracting Party may make with respect to any matter affecting the operation of the present
Treaty.
2 Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties as to the interpretation or application of
the present Treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, shall be submitted to the
International Court of Justice, unless the High Contracting Parties agree to settlement by some
other pacific means.
Article XXII
1. The present Treaty shall replace the following agreements between the United States of
America and Iran:
(a) the provisional agreement relating to commercial and other relations,
concluded at Tehran May 14, 1928, [De Martens, Nouveau Rccueil general de
Traites, troisieme serie, tome XXX, p. 885.] and
(b) the provisional agreement relating to personal status and family law,
concluded at Tehran July 11, 1928. [De Martens, Nouveau Rccueil general de
Traites, troisieme serie, tome XXV, p. 58.]
2. Nothing in the present Treaty shall be construed to supersede any provision of the trade
agreement and the supplementary exchange of notes between the United States of America
and Iran, concluded at Washington AprilS, 1943. [United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 106, p.
155.]
Article XXIII
1. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged at
Tehran as soon as possible.2. The present Treaty shall enter into force one month after the day of exchange of
ratifications. It shall remain in force for ten years and shall continue in force thereafter until
terminated as provided herein.
3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year's written notice to the other High
Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at
any time thereafter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and
have affixed hereunto their seals.
DONE in duplicate, in the English and Persian languages, both equally authentic, at Tehran
this fifteenth day of August one thousand nine hundred fifty-five, corresponding with the
twenty-third day ofMordad one thousand three hundred and thirty four.
Selden Chapin Mostafa Samiy
[seal] [seal]APPENDIX2 Table 1: Claims Pending Against I. R. Iran & Iranian State Entities
As of 12 June 2016
Relief Sou2ht
No. Parties Case No. Compensation Punitive Damages
1 Baxter v. Iran 1:11-cv-02133 $738,000,000 $1,000,000,000
2 Bluth v. Iran 1:12-cv-00250 $110,000,000 $300,000,000.00
3 Boulos v. Iran 1:01-cv-02684 $200,000,000 $125,000,000
4 Cohen v. Iran 1:12-cv-01496 $590,000,000.00 $5,550,000,000.00
5 Freeman v. Bank Saderat 1:14-cv-660 1
PLC
1:15-cv-00456
6 Fritz v. Iran $80,000,000 Equal to 3 times of
compensation
7 Goldberg-Botvin v. Iran 1:12-cv-01292 $54,000,000 $300,000,000.
8 Hoglan v. Iran 1:11-cv-01634 $2 billion compensation
and punitive damages
9 Hekmati v. Iran 1:16-cv-00875
10 Kaplan v. Iran 1:10-cv-00483 $1,000,000,000 To be determined by Court
11 Kinyua v. Iran 1:14-cv-02118 $375,000,000 Compensation includes
punitive damages
12 Lelchook 1:15-cv-13715 To be determined by Court To be determined by Court
13 Mati Gill 1:15-cv-02272 $10,000,000 $30,000,000
14 Maalouf 1:16-cv-00280 $17,930,824.00 To be determined by Court
15 Ndeda Chogo v. Iran 1:15-cv-00951 $1'000,000,000
16 Relvas v. Iran 1:14-cv-0 1752 $1,720,000,000 $9,000,000,000
17 Ron Fraenkel v. Iran 1;15-cv-01080
18 Saleh Ali Alshaar 1:15-cv-23438 $5,000,000
19 Scharf 1:14-cv-06702
20 Sheikh v. Iran 1:14-cv-02090 $300,000,000 Compensation includes
punitive damages
21 Shmuel Braun 1:15-cv-01136
22 Shoham v. Iran 1:12-cv-00508 $150,000,000 $300,000,000
23 Strange 1:14-cv-00435 $200,000,000
24 Soto 1:15-cv-0841 0 To be determined by Court To be determined by_Court
25 Steven Bova 1:15-cv-01074 $ 1,000,000,000 appx. Several billions
26 Thomas Burnett 1:15-cv-09903 $1,000,000,000 Compensation includes
R_unitivedama_g_es
27 Timothy Karcher 1:16-cv-00232 To be determined by Court To be determined by Court
28 Vaughn v. Iran 1:13-cv-00974 $1,800,000,000 $200,000,000
29 Yonadav Hirshfeld 1:15-cv-01082 Table 2: Judgments Issued Against I.R. Iran, Iranian State Entities & Iranian Officials
As of 12 June 2016
Compensation Punitive
No. Parties Case No. (US$) Damages (US$)
1 Acosta v. Iran 1:06-cv-00745 $50,172,000 $300,000,000
2 Amduso v. Iran 1:08-cv-01361 $877,939,215 $877,939,215
3 Anderson v. Iran 1:99-cv-0698 $41,200,000 $300,000,000
4 Anderson v. Iran 1:08-cv-00535 $7,500,000. $25,800,000.
5 Arnold v. Iran 1:06-cv-516 $19,023,602.00 $20,000,000.00
6 Ashton v. Iran 1:02-CV-06977 $1,718,000,000 5,841,880,000
1:04-cv-01712
7 Baiani v. Iran $66,331,500 $400,000,000
8 Bakhtiar v. Iran 1:10-7030 $12,000,000
9 Beer v. Iran 1:08-cv-0 1807 $13,000,000. $300,000,000
10 Ben Haim v. Iran 1:08-cv-00520 $300,000,000 $300,000,000
11 Bennet v. Iran 1:03-cv-1486 $12,904,548
12 Ben-Rafael v. Iran 1:06-cv-00721 $62,441 ,839
13 Blais v. Iran 1:02-cv-285 $28,801,792
14 Bland v. Iran 1:05-cv-02124 $227,805,908 $955,652,324
15 Boddofv. Iran 1:02-cv-1991 $16,988,300 $300,000,000
16 Bonk v. Iran 1:08-cv-1237 $158,750,000 $170,000,000
17 Botvin v. Iran 1:05-cv-220 $1,704,457
1:08-cv-00534 $9,500,000
18 Brewer v. Iran
19 Brown v. Iran 1:08-cv-531 $183,281,294 $630487651
20 Campuzano v. Iran 1:00-cv-2328 $112,463,608 $300,000,000
21 Carlson v. Iran 1:00-cv-0 1309 $7,800,000 $300,000,000
22 Cicippio v. Iran 1:96-cv-0 1805 $65,000,000
23 Cicippio Puelo 1:01-cv-0496 $91,000,000
24 Cronin v. Iran 1:99-cv-2890 $1,200,000 $300,000,000
25 Dammarell v. Iran 1:01-cv-2224 $316,919,657
26 Davis v. Iran 1:07-cv-1302 $486,918,005 $1,674,997,973
27 Dodge v. Iran 1:03-cv-00252 $5,670,000
27 Eisenfeld v. Iran 1:98-1945 $27,161,002 $300,000,000
28 Elahi v. Iran 1:99-cv-02802 $11,740,035 $300,000,000
29 Fain v. Iran 1:10-cv-00628 $15,268,703 $52,524,338
30 Federal Insurance v. Iran 1:03-cv-06978 $3,040,998,426
1:97-cv-396 $22,500,000 $225,000,000
31 Flatow v. Iran
32 Flanagan v. Iran 1:10-cv-01643 $18,750,000 $56,250,000
33 Greenbaum v. Iran 1:02-cv-02148 $19,879,023
34 Havlish v. Iran 1:03-cv-09848 $1,362,277,884 $4,686,235,921
35 H~na v. Iran 1:00-cv-00716 $42,000,000 $333,000,000
36 Heiser & Campbell v. 1:01-cv-2104, $291,089,966 $300,000,000
1:00-cv-2329
Iran
37 Higgins v. Iran 1:99-cv-00377 $55,431,937 $300,000,000
38 Holland v. Iran 1:01-cv-01924 $25,241,486
39 Jacobson v. Iran 1:02-cv-0 1365 $6,400,000
40 John Doe v. Iran 1:08-cv-00540 $8,111,899,100 $299,999,998.08
41 Jenco v. Iran 1:00-cv-00549 $14,640,000 $300,000,000
42 Kapar v. Iran 1:02-cv-00078 $13,500,000
43 Kerr v. Iran 1:01-cv-01994 $33,025,296 44 Khaliq v. Iran 1:10-cv-00356 $49,761,544
45 Kilburn 1:01-cv-01301 $11.030,000
46 Kirschenbaum v. Iran 1 :08-cv-01814 $13,750,000.4 $300,000,000
47 Lawrence Belkin 1:06-cv-0711 $18,525,763,
48 Leah S. Mcusa v. Iran 1 :00-cv-0296 $12,000,000 $120,000,000
49 Leibovitch v. Iran 1:08-cv-1939 $17,500,000 + $35,000,000
$14,500,000
50 Levin v. Iran 1:05-cv-02494 $28,807,719
51 Moradi v. Iran 1:13-cv-00599 $10,168,000 $10,168,000
1 :06-cv-00596 $31,865,570 $61,302,571
52 Murphy v. Iran
53 Mwila v. Iran 1:08-cv-01377 $233,757,712.49 $185,994,928
54 Nikbin v. Iran 1:04-cv-00008 $2,600,000
55 O'Brien v. Iran 1 :06-cv-00690 $10,050,000 $34,572,000
56 Oveissi v. Iran 1:11-cv-00849 $7,500,000 $300,000,000
57 Owen & Aliganga v. Iran 1:01-cv-02244 $283,809,867 $338,491,262
58 Opati V. Iran 1:12-cv-01224 $1,581,716,936 $1,581,716,936
59 Onosongo v. Iran 1:08-cv-01380 $99,553,289 $99,553,289
1:01-cv-2094 $2,656,944,877
60 Peterson v. Iran
61 Polhill v. Iran 1 :00-cv-01798 $31,500,000 $300,000,000
62 Prevatt v. Iran 1 :02-cv-01775 $2,500,000$
63 R. Stethem v. Iran 1 :00-cv-159 $21,200,000 $300,000,000
64 Rafi i v. Iran 1:01-cv-00850 $5,000,000 $300,000,000
65 Reiger v. Iran 1:01-cv--1302 $5,321,520
66 Rimkus v. Iran 1:08-cv-01615 $5,000,000 $5,150,000
67 Roth v. Iran 1:11-cv-01377 $18,691,019 $112,500,000
68 Salazar v. Iran 1:02-cv-00558 $18,297,000
69 Sisso v. Iran 1:05-cv-00394 $5,000,000
70 Spencer v. Iran 1:06-cv-00750 $12,565,922 $12,500,000
71 Spencer v. Iran 1:12-cv-00042 $102,161,376 $351,435,133
72 Steen v. Iran 1:00-cv-03037 $42,750,000 $300,000,000
Stem v. Iran 1:00-cv-02602 $13,000,000 $300,000,000
73
74 Surette v. Iran 1 :01-cv-00570 $18,961,284 $300,000,000
75 Sutherland v. Iran 1:99-cv-3279 $53,400,000 $300,000,000
76 Tarek A. Reed 1:03-cv-02657 $4,535,000
77 Taylor v. Iran 1:10-cv-00844 $148,000,000 $509,120,000
78 Tracy v. Iran 1 :01-cv-02517 $18,509,999
79 Turner v. Iran 1:01-cv-01981 $27,310,000 $300,000,000
80 Valencia v. Iran 1 :08-cv-00533 $15,500,000 $15,965,000
1:03-cv-01959 $290,291,092 $798,000,000
81 Valore v. Iran
82 Wachman v. Iran 1 :06-cv-00351 $25,040,289
83 Wagner v. Iran 1:00-cv-01799 $16,280,000 $300,000,000
84 Wamai v. Iran 1:08-cv-01349 $1,783,052,244 $1,783,052,244
85 Weinstein v. Iran 1:00-cv-02601 $33, 248,164 $150,000,000
86 Weir v. Iran 1:01-cv-01303 $11,450,000 $300,000,000
87 Welch v. Iran 1:01-cv-00863 $32,698,304
88 Worley 1:12-cv-02069 $58,580,424 $201,516,659
1 :08-cv-01460 $32,068,634 $300,000,000
89 Wultz v. Iran
TOTAL $25,936,220,131 $30,155,905,442 Table 3: Enforcement Proceedings
As of 12 June 2016
No. Main Case Execution Case
Parties Dateof Amount of Judgment Court, Date, Entity AgainsAssets Subject Dateof Court Decision on
Judgment Case Number Which Execution Execution
Compensation Punitive Execution
Damages Sought
1 Bennet v. Iran 30.8.2007 $12,904,548
-Greenbaum v. Iran31.8.2006----$19,879,023---------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------ia Bank Melli Ir$ 17.6 million 28.2.2013:
Acosta v. Iran 28.8.2008 $50,172,000 $300,000,000 2.12.2011 Visa Corp. debtDistrict Court judgment
3-11-cv-5807 Bank Melli Iran22.2.2016:
-Heiser v. Iran---22.12.2006---$291,089,966--------------13-16100--- Courtf Appeals judgment,
Case is now pending in En
-------------------------------------------------------------------- bane
Heiser v. Iran 30.9.2009 $300,000,000
2 Peterson v. Iran 7.9.2007 $2,656,944,877
-------------------s~~-N-~bo~eSee No.I above------------------ I
Greenbaum v. Iran
------------------s~~N-"-.bo~e----No~bo~~----sNe-o~~bo;e""----
Acosta v. Iran
--------------------------------------------se-N"-b"O;e-----th New Bank Markazi $1.895,600,513 9.7.2013: I
Heiser v. Iran See No.I abovee No.I above York Iran interestsBank District Court judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------010 Markazi Iran in9.7.2014:
Rubin v. Iran 10.9.2003 $71,000,000 $37,500,000 1:10-cv-4518 securities Court of Appeals judgment
-Levin v. Iran----14.1.2008-----------------------------------
------------------------------------ ~.---------------------52 20.4.2016:
------------------------------------ J9zz_?__~~?-.Q __14-7709_ Supreme Court judgment
Bonk v. Iran 31.3.2010 -~-?~?_~9 __-~__lQQ?9_,9_Q9_,.QQ9_-- 6. 6.2016: I
-Silvia v. Iran---31.3.2010--------- District Court authorized
------------------------------------ :_l_------------------- payment of the funds to
------------------------------------ z" ? _------------------- judgment creditors I
Bland v. Iran 21.12.2011 -~?P& ?.Q?_-~~??A??_,_~?:l_--
-Beer v. Iran-----19.5.2011---$13,000,000 $300,000,000
I3 Peterson et a! v. Iran See No. 2 above See No. 2 above See No. 2 above South New Bank Markazi $ 1.424 billion& 19.2. 2015:
See No. 2 above York Iran
€ 214 million District Court judgment,
30.12.2013 interests of Bank Case is now pending before
1:13-cv-9195 Markazi in Court of Appeals
15-0690 securities in
Europe
4 Rubin v. Iran 10.9.2003 $71,000,000 37,500,000 District of Iranian Cultural Iranian historical 27.3.2014:
Illinois Heritage Persepolis tablets Iran's motion for summary
29.12.2003 Organization
judgment granted, Case is
1:03-cv-9370 now pending before the
14-1935 Court of Appeals
5 Frym v. Iran 10.9.2003 $6000,000
-Rafii v. Iran----------- -2.12.2002-------- $5,000,000--------- -$300,000,000------
I
------------------------- ------------------ ------------------- -------------------
Rozenman v. Iran 10.9.2003 $15,000,000 $37,500,0000 District of South Iranian Ministry $9,462,750 27.11.2013:
California of Defense amount of an ICC District Court judgment
------------------------- -10.9.2003-------- $12,000,000-------- $37,500,0000------- 16.5.2012 award issued in 2.2016:
Mendelson v. Iran
------------------------- ------------------ ------------------- ------------------- 3:98-cv-01165 favor of the Court of Appeals judgment
Miller v. Iran 10.9.2003 $12,000,000 $37,500,0000 13-57182 Ministry against 29.4.2016:
Cubic Order to release the funds to
------------------------- ------------------ ------------------- ------------------- plaintiffs I
J. Rubin v. Iran 10.9.2003 $12,000,00 $37,500,0000 I
-------------------
-D. Rubin v. Iran-------- -10.9.2003-------- $2,500,000--------- $37,500,0000
I
6 Weinstein v. Iran 6.2.2002 $33, 248,164 $150,000,000 District ofNew Bank Melli Iran Sale proceeds of 5.6.2009:
York Bank Melli Iran's District Court judgment
------------------------- -See No. I above-- See No. I above---- -SeeNo. I above---- 12.7.2012 building in New 15.6.2010:
Heiser v. Iran
2:12-cv-03445 York in the Court of Appeals judgment
09-3034 amount of 19.12.2012:
$1,607,000 Order to turn over sale
proceeds of the building to
plaintiffs
See No. I above See No. I above See No.I above District of Iranian Garnishment of 10.8.2011:
7 Heiser v. Iran
Columbia Telecommunica Sprint debts to Judgement for tumover of
21.5.2010 tion ITIC in the the funds to plaintiffs
1:00-cv-02329 Infrastructure amount of
Co. (ITIC) $613,587
2APPENDIX3US Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976
(as originally enacted) U.S. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 199
U.S. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES
ACT OF 1976
An Act
To defme the jurisdiction of United States courts in suits against
foreign states, the circumstances in which foreign states are immune
.·-fromsUi t na~iitwll:icn~ exteec-evid-on-t~eiapoperly' .
and for other purposes.
Be it enactedby the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America iCongressassembled, That this Act may be
cited as the uForeign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976".
SEC.2. (a) That chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code,is
amended by inserting immediately before section 1331 the following
new section:
''§1330. Actions against foreign states
u(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction without
regardto amount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a
foreignstate as defmed in section 1603(a) of this tittoany claim
for reliefn personam with respect towhich the foreign stateis not
entitledtoimmunity either under sections 1605-1607 of this title or
under any applicable internationagreement.
u(b) Personal jurisdiction over a foreign state shalltoeveryas
claim for relief over which the district courts have jurisdiction under
subsection (a) where servihas been made under section 1608 ofthis
title.
u(c) For purposes of subsection (b),an appearance by a foreign state
does not confer personal jurisdiction with retoany claim for relief
not arising out of any transaction or occurrence enumerated in sections
1605-1607 of this title.".
(b) By inserting in the chapter analysis of that chapter· before
u1331. Federal question; amount in controversy; costs."
the following new item:
u1330. Action against foreign states.".
SEC.3. That section 1332 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking subsections (aX2)and (3) and substituting in their
place the following:
u(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state;
u(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or sub
jects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
u(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as
plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.". FOREIGN GOVERNMENT LITIGATION
SEC.4. (a) That title 28, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after chapter 95 the following new chapter:
"Chapter 97.--JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES
OF FOREIGN STATES
"Sec.
- --- --m--ccroo~f--Fhldings--ancfdeciaratlon m- ofj--u---- se~--
"1603. Definitions.
"1604. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction.
"1605. General exceptions tothe jurisdictional immunity of a foreign
state.
"1606. Extent of liability.
u1607. Counterclaims.
"1608. Service; time to answer default.
u1609. Immunity from attachment and execution of property of a
foreign state.
n1610. Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution.
u1611. Certain types of property immune from execution.
"§ 1602. Findings and declaration of purpose
nThe Congress fmds that the determination by United States courts
of the claims of foreign statto immunity from the jurisdiction of such
courts would serve the interests of justice and would ·protect the rights
of both foreign states and litigants in United States courts. Under
international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction of
foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned, and
their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction of
judgments rendered against them in connection with their commercial
activities.Claims of foreign states toimmunity should henceforth be
decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity
with the principles set forth in this chapter.
"§ 1603. Definitions
uFor purposes of this chapter-
n(a) A cforeign state\ except as used in section 1608 of this
title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency
or instrumentality of a foreign state as defmed in "subsection (b).
n(b) An cagency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means
any entity-
u(l) which is a separate legal person, corporate or other
wise, and
n(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdi
vision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other owner- U.S. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES. ACT 201
ship interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision
thereof, and
"(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United
States as defined in section 1332(c) and (d) of this title, nor
created under the laws of any third country .
..-~·-~~~~ 1U~ie. Tttes' includes all territory and waters, con
-tinentaoriiiS U iuarj~ecf· tou~tsliieCfion~ofTne.lJriftea~SfaieS.·
"(d) A 'commercial activity' means either a regular course of
commercial conductr a particular commercial transaction or act.
The commercial character of an activity sbeldetermined by
reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular
transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.
"(e) A 'commercial activity carried on in the United States by
a foreign state' means commercial activity carried on by such state
and having substantial contact with the United States.
u§ 1604. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction
"Subject to existing internatagreements to which the United
States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign state
shallbeimmune·from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States
and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this
chapter~
u§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictionimmunity of a
foreign state
"(a) A foreign state shallbeoimmune from the jurisdiction of
courts of the United States or of the States in any case--
"(1) in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either
explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the
waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in
accordance with the terms of the waiver;
"(2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity
carried onn the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act
performedin the United States in connection with a commercial
activity ofe foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the
territory of the United States in co:r..nectionwith a commercial
activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct
effectn the United States;
"(3)in which rights in property taken in violation of interna
tional laware in issue and that property or any property ex
changed for such property is presentn the United States in
connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United
States by the foreign stator that property or any property
exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or
instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumen
tality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States; 202 FOREIGN GOVERNMENT UTIGATION
u(4)in which rights in property in the United States acquired
by succession orgiftor rights in immovable property situated in
the United States are in issue; or
u(5)not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above, in
which money damages are sought against a foreign state for
- --~personaLin gj:cuQ.y~l?r!am age to or loss of property, occur
ringin the United States ancaus e dthe~toi a ci-orlliSSion··
of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign
state while acting within the scope of his office or employment;
except this paragraph shall not applt<r--
u(A)any claim based upon the exercise or performance or
the failureto exercise or perform a discretionary function
regardless of whetherthe discretion be abused, or
..(Bany claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse
of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit,erfer
ence with contract rights.
(((bA foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of
the courts of the United States in any case in which a suit in admiralty
is broughtto enforce a maritime lien against a vessel or cargo of the
foreign state, which maritime lien is based upon a commercial activity
ofthe foreign state:Provided,That-
..(1) notice of the suit is given by delivery of a copy of the
summons and of the complaint to the person, or his agent, having
possession of the vessel or cargo against which the maritime lien is
asserted; but such notice shall nbe deemed to have been deliv
ered,nor may it thereafter be delivered, if the vessel or cargo is
arrested pursuantto process obtained on behalf of the party bring
ing the suit-unlessthe party was unaware that the vessel or cargo
of a foreign state was involved, in which event the service of
process ofarrest shall be deemed to constitute valid delivery of
such notice;and
u(2)noticeto the foreign state of the commencement of suit as
provided in section 1608 of this title is initiated within ten days
either of the delivery of notice as provided in subsect(bX1)of
this section or,n the case of a party who was unaware that the
vessel or cargo of a foreign state was involved, of the date such
party determined the existence of the foreign state's interest.
Whenever notice is delivered under subsectio(bX1)of this section, the
maritime lien shall thereafter be deemedtobe an in personam claim
against the foreign state which at that time owns the vessel or cargo
involved:Provided, That a court may not award judgment againstthe
foreign state in an amount greater than the value of the vessel or cargo
upon.which the maritime lien arose, such valuto be determined as of
the time notice is served under subsecti(bX1)of this section. U.S. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 203
"§ 1606. Extent of liability
uAs to any claim for relief with respect to which a foreign state is
not entitled to immunity under section 1605 or 1607 of this chapter, the
foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent
as a private individual under like circumstances; but a foreign state
except for an agency or instrumentality thereof shall not be liable for
··--punitive~damages;~if,however,~in~any~case"-wherein·-death~was-caused;·····
the law of the place where the action or omission occurred provides, or
has been construed to provide, for damages only punitive in nature, the
foreign state shall be liable for actual or compensatory damages mea
sured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death which were
incurred by the persons for whose benefit the action was brought.
~~§ 1607. Counterclaims
uln any action brought by a foreign state, or in which a foreign
state intervenes, in a court of the United States or of a State, the
foreign state shall not be accorded immunity with respect to any
counterclaim-
u(a) for which a foreign state would not be entitled to immuni
ty under section 1605 of this chapter had such claim been brought
in a separate action against the foreign state; or
u(b) arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the claim of the foreign state; or
u(c) to the extent that the counterclaim does not seek relief
exceeding in amount or differing in kind from that sought by the
foreign state.
"§ 1608. Service; time to answer; default
u(a) Service in the courts of the United States and of the States
shall be made upon a foreign state or political subdivision of a foreign
state:
u(1) by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in
accordance with any special arrangement for service between the
plaintiff and the foreign state or political subdivision; or
u(2) if no special arrangement exists, by delivery of a copy of
the summons and complaint in accordance with an applicable
international convention on service of judicial documents; or
u(3) if service cannot be made under paragraphs (1) or (2), by
sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit,
together with a translation of each into the official language of the
foreign state, by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be
addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of
the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned, or
u(4) if service cannot be made within 30 days under paragraph
(3), by sending two copies of the summons and complaint and a
notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official 204 FOREIGN GOVERNMENT UTIGATION
language of the foreign state, by any form of mail requiring a
signed receipt, toe addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the
court to the Secretary of State in Washington, District of Columbia,
to the attention of the Director of Special Consular Services-and
the Secretary shall transmit one copy of the papers through dip
lomatic channels to the foreign state and shall send to the clerk of
· -·c--- ·cotlti"·Efertifi:ed~cop dipl-moftc-tote-ndicating ~when-
the papers were transmitted.
As used in this subsection, a 'notice of suit' shall mean a notice
addressed to a foreign state and in a form prescribed by the Secretary
of State by regulation.
"(b)Service in the courts of the United States and of the States
shall be made upon an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state:
"(1)by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in
accordance with any special arrangement for service between the
plaintiff and the agency or instrumentalityor
."(2)if no special arrangement exists, by delivery of a copy of
the summons and complaint either to an officer, a managing or
general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or
by law to receive service of process in the United States; or in
accordance with an applicable international convention on service
of judicial documents; or
"(3)if service cannot be made under paragraphs (1)or (2),and
if reasonably calculated to give actual notice, by delivery of a copy
of the summons and complaint, together with a translation of each
into the official language of the foreign state-
"(A) as directed by an authority of the foreign state or
political subdivision in response to a letter rogatory or request
or
"(B)by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be
addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the
agency or instrumentality to be served, or
"(C) as directed by order of the court consistent with the
law of the place where service is to be made.
"(c) Service shall be deemed to have been made-
"(1) in the case of service under subsection (aX4), as of the date
of transmittal indicated in the certified copy of the diplomatic note;
and
"(2) in any other case under this section, as of the date of
receipt indicated in the certification, signed and returned postal
receipt, or other proof of service applicable to the method of service
employed.
"(d) In any action brought in a court of the United States or of a
State, a foreign state, a political subdivision thereof, or an agency or
instrumentality of a foreign state shall serve an answer or other U.S. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 205
responsive pleading to the complaint within sixty days after servichas
been made under this section.
u(e) No judgment by default shall be entered by a court of the
United States or of a State against a foreign state, a political subdivi
sion thereof, or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, unless
the claimant establishes his claim or righttorelief by evidence satisfac-
.. tOijtOthticourl. -.A-co opr-an yucliOefiiUif}uagmentsliB.lrfie seii.t____
the foreign state or political subdivision in the manner prescribed for
service in this section.
"§ 1609. Immunity from attachment and execution of property of
a foreign state
usubject to existing international agreements towhich the United
States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act the property in
the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment
arrest and execution except as provided in sections 1610 and 1611 of
this chapter.
"§ 1610. Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execu
tion
u(a) The property in the United States of a foreign state, as defmed
in section 1603(a) of thiS chapterused for a commercial activity in the
United States, shall not be immune from attachment in aid of execu
tion, or from execution, upon a judgment entered by a court of the
United States or of a State after the effective date of this Act, if-
u(1) the foreign state has waived its immunity from attach
ment in aid of execution or from execution either explicitly or by
implication, notwithstanding any Withdrawal of the waiver the
foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the
terms of the waiver, or
u(2) the property is or was used for the commercial activity
upon which the claim is based, or
u(3) the execution relates to a judgment establishing rights in
property which has been taken in violation of international law or
which has been exchanged for property taken in violation of
international law, or
n(4} the execution relates to a judgment establishing rights in
property-
n(A) which is acquired by succession or gift,or
u(B) which is immovable and situated in the United
States: Provided, That such property is not used for purposes
of maintaining a diplomatic or consular mission or the resi
dence of the Chief of such mission, or
n(5) the property consists of any contractual obligation or any
proceeds from such a contractual obligation to indemnify or hold
harmless the foreign state or its employees under a policy of 206 FOREIGN GOVERNMENT LITIGATION
automobile or other liability or casualty insurance covering the
claim which merged into the judgment.
"(b)In addition to subsection (a), any property in the United States
of an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state engaged in commer
cial activity in the United States shall not be immune from attachment
···-·in-aid~oLexecution,J>tJ aJj!:;.g)InenLerxd._y.aiiQ~Lupgn
court ofthe United States or of a State after the .effeedate~oithlS~-·-
Act, if-
"(1) the agency or instrumentalityhas waived its immunity
from attachment in aid of execution or from execution either
explicitly or implicitly, notwithstandinany withdrawal of the
waiver the agency or instrumentalitymay purport to effect except
in accordance with the terms of the waiver, or
u(2) the judgment relates to a claim for which the agency or
instrumentalityisnot immune by virtue of section 1605(aX2),(3),or
(5),or 1605(b)of this chapter, regardless of whether the property is
or was used for the activity upon which the claim is based.
tt(c)No attachment or execution referred to in subsections (a) and
(b)of this sectioshall~ permitted until the court has ordered such
attachment and execution after having determined that a reasonable
J>eriodof time has elapsed following the entry of judgment and the
giving of any notice required under section 1608(e) of this chapter.
tt(d)The property of a foreign state, as defined in section 1603(a)of
this chapter, used for a commercial activity in the United States, shall
not be immune from attachment prior tothe entry of judgment in any
action brought in a court of the United States or of a State, or prior to
the elapse of the period of time provided in subsection (c)of this section,
if-
tt(1) the foreign state has explicitly waived its immunity from
attachment prior to judgment, notwithstanding any withdrawal_of
the waiver the .foreign state may purport to effect except in
accordance with the terms of the waiver, and
u(2) the purpose of the attachment is to secure satisfaction of a
judgment that has been or may ultimately be entered against the
foreign state, and not to obtain jurisdiction.
u§ 1611. Certain types of property immune from execution
tt(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1610 of this chapter,
the property of those organizations designated by the President as
being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities
provided by the InternationalOrganizations Immunities Act shall not
be subject toattachment or any other judicial process impOOingthe
disbursement of funds to, or on the order of, a foreign state as the result
ofan action brought in the courts of the United States or of the States. U.S. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 207
"(b)Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1610 of this chapter,
the property of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment and
from execution, if.-
c~( th) property is that of a foreign central bank or monetary
authority held for its own account, unless such bank or authority,
or its parent foreign government,has explicitly waived its immuni-
-~-~ ---~tyfronrattachmenti ne~dcoion,--orJrom-execution,-notwith- ·.---
standing any withdrawal of the waiver which the bank, authority
or government may purport to effect except in accordance with the
terms of the waiver; or
u(2)the property is, or is intended to be, used in connection
with a military activity and
u(A) is of a military character, or
"(B) is under the control of a military authority or defense
agency." U.S. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 209
U.S. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES AUf
1988 Amendments
SEC.2. Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by-
(1) striking out nor" at the end of paragraph (4);
--,-~(2 stfiJCnig our~tne~=perroa~-a etn.t-oe·patagraplC(5rana·
inserting in lieu thereof u; or"; and
(3)adding at the end thereof the following:
u(6) in which the action is brought, either to enforce an
agreement made by the foreign State with or for the benefit of
a private party to submit to arbitration all or any differences
which have arisen or which may arise between the parties with
respect to a defmed legal relationship, whether contractual or
not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by
arbitration under the laws of the United States, or to confliiD.
an award made pursuant to such an agreement to arbitrate,if
(A) the arbitration takes place or is intended to take place in
the United States, (B)the agreement or award is or may be
governed by a treaty or other international agreement in force
for the United States calling for the recognition and enforce
ment of arbitral awards, (C) the underlying claim, save for the
agreement to arbitrate, could have been brought in a United
States court under this section or section 1607, ·or (D) para
graph (1) of this subsection is otherwise applicable.".
SEC.3. Section 1610(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by-
(1)striking out the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting in lieu thereof u,or"; and
(2) adding at the end thereof the following:
u(6) the judgment is based on an order confrrming an
arbitral award rendered against the foreign State, provided
that attachment in aid of execution, or execution, would not be
inconsistent with any provision in the arbitral agreement.".
Public Law 100-669 [S. 2204]; November 16, 1988.Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996
(introducing§ 1605(a)(7) FSIA)
Apri124,1996 24/05/2016 https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi132/PLAW-104publ132.htm
[184th Congress Public Law132]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
<DOC>
[DOCID:f:publ132.184]
[[Page 1213]]
ANTITERRORISA M NDEFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACTOF 1996
[[Page 118 STAT. 1214]]
Public Law104-132
184th Congress
An Act
To deter terrorism provide justice for victims~ provide for an
effective death penalty ~nd for other purposes. <<NOTE:Apr. 24~
1996 - [S. 735]>>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled <<NOTE:Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.>>
SECTION1. <<NOTE:18 USC1 note.>> SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996' '.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--HABEASCORPUS REFORM
Sec. 181. Filing deadlines.
Sec. 102. Appeal.
Sec. 183. Amendmentof Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Sec. 104. Section 2254 amendments.
Sec. 185. Section 2255 amendments.
Sec. 106. Limits on second or successive applications.
Sec. 107. Death penalty litigation procedures.
Sec. 108. Technical amendment.
TITLE II--JUSTICE FORVICTIMS
Subtitle A--Mandatory Victim Restitution
Sec. 281. Short title.
Sec. 282. Order of restitution.
Sec. 283. Conditions of probation.
Sec. 284. Mandatory restitution.
Sec. 285. Order of restitution to victims of other crimes.
Sec. 286. Procedure for issuance of restitution order.
Sec. 287. Procedure for enforcement of fine or restitution order.
Sec. 288. Instruction to Sentencing Commission.
https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi132/PLAW-104publ132.htm 1/224/05/2016 https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi1104publ132.htm
Sec. 209. Justice Department regulations.
Sec. 210. Special assessments on convicted persons.
Sec. 211. Effective date.
Subtitle 8--Jurisdiction for Lawsuits Against Terrorist States
Sec. 221. Jurisdiction for lawsuits against terrorist states.
https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi132/PIJ\W-104publ132.htm 2/224/05/2016 https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi132/PLAW-104publ132.htm
Subtitle B--Jurisdiction for Lawsuits Against Terrorist States
SEC. 221. JURISDICTION FORLAWSUITA SGAINST TERRORIST STATES.
(a) Exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunity for Certain Cases.-
Section 1605 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
. (A) by striking ''or'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(6) and inserting··; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
''(7) not otherwise covered by paragraph (2), in which money
damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury
or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial
killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of
material support or resources (as defined in section 2339A of
title 18) for such an act if such act or provision of material
support is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such
foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her
office, employment, or agency, except that the court shall
decline to hear a claim under this paragraph--
''(A) if the foreign state was not designated as a
state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App.
2405(j)) or section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) at the time the act occurred,
unless later so designated as a result of such act; and
''(B) even if the foreign state is or was so
designated, if--
''(i) the act occurred in the foreign state
against which the claim has been brought and the
claimant has not afforded the foreign state a
reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in
accordance with accepted international rules of
arbitration; or
''(ii) the claimant or victim was not a
national of the United States (as that term is
defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act) when the act upon which the
claim is based occurred."; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
''(e) For purposes of paragraph (7) of subsection (a)--
''(1) the terms 'torture' and 'extrajudicial killing' have
the meaning given those terms in section 3 of the Torture Victim
Protection Act of 1991;
''(2) the term 'hostage taking' has the meaning given that
term in Article 1 of the International Convention Against the
Taking of Hostages; and
[[Page 110 STAT. 1242]]
''(3) the term 'aircraft sabotage' has the meaning given
that term in Article 1 of the Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation.
''(f) No action shall be maintained under subsection (a)(7) unless
the action is commencednot later than 10 years after the date on which
the cause of action arose. All principles of equitable tolling,
including the period during which the foreign state was immunefrom
suit, shall apply in calculating this limitation period.
https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi132/PLAW-104publ132.htm 1/324/05/2016 https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi132/PLAW-104publ132.htm
''(g) Limitation on Discovery.--
''(1) In general.--(A) Subject to paragraph (2), if an
action is filed that would otherwise be barred by section 1604,
but for subsection (a)(7), the court, upon request of the
Attorney General, shall stay any request, demand, or order for
discovery on the United States that the Attorney General
certifies would significantly interfere with a criminal
investigation or prosecution, or a national security operation,
related to the incident that gave rise to the cause of action,
until such time as the Attorney General advises the court that
such request, demand, or order will no longer so interfere.
''(B) A stay under this paragraph shall be in effect during
the 12-month period beginning on the date on which the court
issues the order to stay discovery. The court shall renew the
order to stay discovery for additional 12-month periods upon
motion by the United States if the Attorney General certifies
that discovery would significantly interfere with a criminal
investigation or prosecution, or a national security operation,
related to the incident that gave rise to the cause of action.
''(2) Sunset.--(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), no stay
shall be granted or continued in effect under paragraph (1)
after the date that is 10 years after the date on which the
incident that gave rise to the cause of action occurred.
''(B) After the period referred to in subparagraph (A), the
court, upon request of the Attorney General, may stay any
request, demand, or order for discovery on the United States
that the court finds a substantial likelihood would--
''(i) create a serious threat of death or serious
bodily injury to any person;
''(ii) adversely affect the ability of the United
States to work in cooperation with foreign and
international law enforcement agencies in investigating
violations of United States law; or
''(iii) obstruct the criminal case related to the
incident that gave rise to the cause of action or
undermine the potential for a conviction in such case.
''(3) Evaluation of evidence.--The court's evaluation of any
request for a stay under this subsection filed by the Attorney
General shall be conducted ex parte and in camera.
''(4) Bar on motions to dismiss.--A stay of discovery under
this subsection shall constitute a bar to the granting of a
motion to dismiss under rules 12(b)(6) and 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
''(5) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
prevent the United States from seeking protective orders or
asserting privileges ordinarily available to the United
States.''.
(b) Exception to Immunity From Attachment.--
(1) Foreign state.--Section 1610(a) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended--
[[Page 110 STAT. 1243]]
(A) by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(6) and inserting··, or''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
''(7) the judgment relates to a claim for which the foreign
state is not immune under section 1605(a)(7), regardless of
whether the property is or was involved with the act upon which
the claim is based.".
(2) Agency or instrumentality.--Section 1610(b)(2) of title
28, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ''or (5)'' and inserting ''(5), or
https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi132/PLAW-104publ132.htm 2/324/05/2016 https://www.congres14/plaws/pubi132/-104publ132.htm
{7)' '; and
(B) by striking ··used for the activity'' and
inserting ''involved in the act''.
(c) <<NOTE:28 USC1605 note.>> Applicability.--The amendments made
by this subtitle shall apply to any cause of action arising before, on,
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C <<NOTE:Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 1996.>> -
Assistance to Victims of Terrorism
SEC. 231. <<NOTE:42 USC10601 note.>> SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ''Justice for Victims of Terrorism
Act of 1996' '
https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/pubi132/Pl.AW-104publ132.htm 3/3Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act 1997
(Civil liability for acts of state sponsored terrorism)
30 April1996U.S GOVERNMENT9
INFORMATION
CPO
PUBLIC LAW 104-208-SEPT. 30, 1996 110 STAT. 3009
*Public Law 104-208
104th Congress
An Act
Making omnibus consolidated appropriatiofor the fiscal year ending September Sept. 30, 1996
30, 1997, and for other purposes.
[H.R. 3610]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, Omnibus
Consolidated
Appropriations
DIVISION A Act, 1997.
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the several depart
ments, agencies, corporations and other organizational units of the
Government for the fiscal year 1997, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I-OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 101. (a) For programs, projects or activities in the Depart
ments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, provided as follows, to be effec
tive as if it had been enacted into law as the regular appropriations
Act:
AN ACT Departments of
Commerce,
Justice, and
Making appropriationsfor the Departments of Commerce, Justice,and State, the State, the
Judiciaryand related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997Judiciary,nd
for other purposes. Related Agencies
Appropriations
TITLE I-DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Act, 1997.
Department of
Justice
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Appropriations
Act, 1997.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For expenses necessary for the administration of the Depart
ment of Justice, $75,773,000 of which not to exceed $3,317,000
is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed 43 permanent positions
and 44 full-time equivalent workyears and $7,477,000 shall be
expended for the Department Leadership Program exclusive of aug
mentation that occurred in these offices in fiscal year 1996: Provided
further, That not to exceed 41 permanent positions and 48 full
time equivalent workyears and $4,660,000 shall be expended for
the Offices of Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs:
*Note: This is a typeset print of the original hand enrollment as signed by the President on
September 30, 1996. The text is printed without corrections. Missing text in the original is
indicated by a footnote. PUBLIC LAW 104-208-SEPT. 30, 1996 110 STAT. 3009-172
supporting the development or deployment of a ballistic missile
capability.
LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO MEXICO
SEC. 587. Not less than $2,500,000 of the funds appropriated
or otherwise made available by this Act for the Govemment of
Mexico shall be withheld from obligation until the President has
determined and reported to Congress that-
(1) the Govemment of Mexico is taking actions to reduce
the amount of illegal drugs entering the United States from
Mexico; and
(2) the Govemment of Mexico-
(A) is taking effective actions to apply vigorously all
law enforcement resources to investigate, track, capture,
incarcerate, and prosecute individuals controlling, super
vising, or managing intemational narcotics cartels or other
similar entities and the accomplices of such individuals,
individuals responsible for, or otherwise involved in, corrup
tion, and individuals involved in money-laundering;
(B) is pursuing intemational anti-drug trafficking ini
tiatives;
(C) is cooperating fully with intemational efforts at
narcotics interdiction; and
(D) is cooperating fully with requests by the United
States for assistance in investigations of money-laundering
violations and is making progress toward implementation
of effective laws to prohibit money-laundering.
LIMITATION OF ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY
SEC. 588. Not more than $22,000,000 of the funds appropriated
in this Act under the heading "Economic Support Fund" may be
made available to the Govemment of Turkey.
CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM
SEC. 589. (a) an official, employee, or agent of a foreign state 28 usc 1605
designated as a state sponsor of terrorism designated under section note.
6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 while acting within
the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency shall be
liable to a United States national or the national's legal representa-
tive for personal injury or death caused by acts of that official,
employee, or agent for which the courts of the United States may
maintain jurisdiction under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United
States Code, for money damages which may include economic dam-
ages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages if the
acts were among those described in section 1605(a)(7).
(b) Provisions related to statute of limitations and limitations
on discovery that would apply to an action brought under 28 U.S.C.
1605<Dand (g) shall also apply to actions brought under this section.
No action shall be maintained under this action if an official,
employee, or agent of the United States, while acting within the
scope of his or her office, employment, or agency would not be
liable forsuch acts if carried out within the United States.
Titles I through V of this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Short title.
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropria
tions Act, 1997".Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 24/05/2016 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/html/PLAW-107publ297.htm
[107th Congress Public Law297]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
<DOC>
[DOCID:f:publ297.107]
[[Page 2321]]
TERRORISM RISK INSURANCA ECTOF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 2322]]
Public Law107-297
107th Congress
An Act
To ensure the continued financial capacity of insurers to provide
coverage for risks from terrorism. <<NOTE:Nov. 26, 2002 - [H.R.
3210] »
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE:Terrorism Risk Insurance
Act of 2002.>> assembled,
SECTION1. SHORT TITLEj TABLEOF CONTENTS.
(a) Short <<NOTE:15 USC6701 note.>> Title.--This Act may be cited
as the ''Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short titlej table of contents.
TITLE I--TERRORISMINSURANCP EROGRAM
Sec. 101. Congressional findings and purpose.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Terrorism Insurance Program.
Sec. 104. General authority and administration of claims.
Sec. 105. Preemption and nullification of pre-existing terrorism
exclusions.
Sec. 106. Preservation provisions.
Sec. 107. Litigation management.
Sec. 108. Termination of Program.
TITLE II--TREATMENT OF TERRORIST ASSETS
Sec. 201. Satisfaction of judgments from blocked assets of terrorists,
terrorist organizations, and State sponsors of terrorism.
TITLE III--FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Certain authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System.
TITLE I--TERRORISM<<NOTE:15 USC6701 note.>> INSURANCP EROGRAM
SEC. 101. CONGRESSIONA FINDINGSANDPURPOSE.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/htmi/PLAW-107publ297.htm 1/2 24/05/2016 https://www.gpo.gov/fds-107publ297/htmI/PLAW-107publ297.htm
TITLE II--TREATMENT OFTERRORIST ASSETS
SEC. 201. SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT FSROM BLOCKEA DSSETSOF TERRORISTS~
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS A~NDSTATESPONSORO SF TERRORISM.
(a) In <<NOTE:28 USC1610 note.>> General.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law~ and except as provided in subsection {b)~ in
every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist
party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism or for which a
terrorist party is not immuneunder section 1605(a)(7) of· title 28~
United States Code~ the blocked assets of that terrorist party
(including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that
terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of
execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any
compensatory damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged
liable.
(b) Presidential <<NOTE:28 USC1610 note.>> Waiver.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2)~ upon determining
on an asset-by-asset basis that a waiver is necessary in the
national security interest the President may waive the
requirements of subsection (a) in connection with (and prior to
the enforcement of) any judicial order directing attachment in
aid of execution or execution against any property subject to
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations.
(2) Exception.--A waiver under this subsection shall not
apply to--
(A) property subject to the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations that has been used by the United
States for any nondiplomatic purpose (including use as
rental property) o~ the proceeds of such use; or
(B) the proceeds of any sale or transfer for value
to a third party of any asset subject to the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations.
(c) Special Rule for Cases Against Iran.--Section 2002 of the
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-386; 114 Stat. 1542)~ as amended by section 686 of Public Law107-
228~ <<NOTE: Ante~ p. 1411.>> is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a){2)(A)(ii b)~striking ''July 27~
2000~ or January 16~ 2002'' and inserting ''July 27~2000~ any
other date before October 28~2000~ or January 16~ 2002'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2)(B) b~ inserting after ''the date
of enactment of this Act'' the following: ''(less amounts
therein as to which the United States has an interest in
subrogation pursuant to subsection (c) arising prior to the date
of entry of the judgment or judgments to be satisfied in whole
or in part hereunder)'';
(3) <<NOTE:28 USC 1606~ 1610 and note.>> by redesignating
subsections (d)~ (e)~ and (f) as subsections (e)~ (f)~ and (g)~
respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection (d):
''(d) Distribution of Account Balances and Proceeds Inadequate to
Satisfy Full Amount of Compensatory Awards Against Iran.--
[[Page 116 STAT. 2338]]
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/htmi/PLAW-107publ297.htm 1/424/05/2016 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/htmi/PLAW-107publ297.htm
''(1) Prior judgments.--
''(A) In general.--In the event that the Secretary
determines that 98 percent of the amounts available to
be paid under subsection (b)(2) are inadequate to pay
the total amount of compensatory damages awarded in
judgments issued as of the date of the enactment of this
subsection in cases identified in subsection (a)(2)(A)
with respect to Iran, the Secretary shall, not later
than 68 days after such date, make payment from such
amounts available to be paid under subsection (b)(2) to
each party to which such a judgment has been issued in
an amount equal to a share, calculated under
subparagraph (B), of 98 percent of the amounts available
to be paid under subsection (b)(2) that have not been
subrogated to the United States under this Act as of the
date of enactment of this subsection.
''(B) Calculation of payments.--The share that is
payable to a person under subparagraph (A), including
any person issued a final judgment as of the date of
enactment of this subsection in a suit filed on a date
added by the amendment made by section 686 of Public Law
187-228, shall be equal to the proportion that the
amount of unpaid compensatory damages awarded in a final
judgment issued to that person bears to the total amount
of all unpaid compensatory damages awarded to all
persons to whomsuch judgments have been issued as of
the date of enactment of this subsection in cases
identified in subsection (a)(2)(A) with respect to Iran.
''(2) Subsequent judgment.--
''(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay to any
person awarded a final judgment after the date of
enactment of this subsection, in the case filed on
January 16, 2882, and identified in subsection (a)(2)(A)
with respect to Iran, an amount equal to a share,
calculated under subparagraph (B), of the balance of the
amounts available to be paid under subsection (b)(2)
that remain following the disbursement of all payments
as provided by paragraph (1). The Secretary shall make
such payment not later than 38 days after such judgment
is awarded.
''(B) Calculation of payments.--To the extent that
funds are available, the amount paid under subparagraph
(A) to such per~on shall be the amount the person would
have been paid under paragraph (1) if the person had
been awarded the judgment prior to the date of enactment
of this subsection.
''(3) Additional payments.--
''(A) In <<NOTE:Deadline.>> general.--Not later
than 38 days after the disbursement of all payments
under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Secretary shall make
an additional payment to each person who received a
payment under paragraph (1) or (2) in an amount equal to
a share, calculated under subparagraph (B), of the
balance of the amounts available to be paid under
subsection (b)(2) that remain following the disbursement
of all payments as provided by paragraphs (1) and (2).
''(B) Calculation of payments.--The share payable
under subparagraph (A) to each such person shall be
equal
[[Page 116 STAT. 2339]]
to the proportion that the amount of compensatory
damages awarded that person bears to the total amount of
all compensatory damages awarded to all persons who
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/htmi/PLAW-107publ297.htm 2/424/05/2016 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/htmi/PLAW-107publ297.htm
received a payment under paragraph {1) or {2).
''{4) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall bar, or require delay in, enforcement of any judgment to
which this subsection applies under any procedure or against
assets otherwise available under this section or under any other
provision of law.
''{5) Certain rights and claims not relinquished.--Any
person receiving less than the full amount of compensatory
damages awarded to that party in a judgment to which this
subsection applies shall not be required to make the election
set forth in subsection (a){2){B) or, with respect to subsection
(a){2){D), the election relating to relinquishment of any right
to execute or attach property that is subject to section
1610{f){1){A) of title 28, United States Code, except that such
person shall be required to relinquish rights set forth--
''(A) in subsection (a){2)(C); and
''(B) in subsection (a)(2)(D) with respect to
enforcement against property that is at issue in claims
against the United States before an international
tribunal or that is the subject of awards by such
tribunal.
''(6) Guidelines for establishing claims of a right to
payment.--The Secretary may promulgate reasonable guidelines
through which any person claiming a right to payment under this
section may inform the Secretary of the basis for such claim,
including by submitting a certified copy of the final judgment
under which such right is claimed and by providing commercially
reasonable payment instructions. The Secretary shall take all
reasonable steps necessary to ensure, to the maximumextent
practicable, that such guidelines shall not operate to delay or
interfere with payment under this section.'·.
(d) Definitions.--In <<NOTE:28 USC1610 note.>> this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
{1) Act of terrorism.--The term ··act of terrorism'' means-
(A) any act or event certified under section 102{1);
or
{B) to the extent not covered by subparagraph (A),
any terrorist activity (as defined in section
212(a){3){B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
{8 U.S.C. 1182{a){3){B)(iii))).
(2) Blocked asset.--The term ''blocked asset'' means--
(A) any asset seized or frozen by the United States
under section 5{b) of the Trading With the EnemyAct {50
U.S.C. App. 5{b)) or under sections 202 and 203 of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act {50 U.S.C.
1701; 1702); and
(B) does not include property that--
(i) is subject to a license issued by the
United States Government for final payment,
transfer, or disposition by or to a person subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States in
connection with a transaction for which the
issuance of such license has been specifically
required by statute other than the International
[[Page 116 STAT. 2340]]
Emergency Economic Powers Act {50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.) or the United Nations Participation Act of
1945 {22 u.s.c. 287 et seq.); or
(ii) in the case of property subject to the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, or that
enjoys equivalent privileges and immunities under
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ29107publ297.htm 3/4 24/05/2016 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/htmi!PLAW-107publ297.htm
the law of the United States, is being used
exclusively for diplomatic or consular purposes.
(3) Certain property.--The term ''property subject to the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations'' and the term ''asset subject
to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations'' mean any property or asset,
respectively, the attachment in aid of execution or execution of
which would result in a violation of an obligation of the United
States under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as the case may be.
(4) Terrorist party.--The term ''terrorist party'' means a
terrorist, a terrorist organization (as defined in section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi))), or a foreign state designated as a
state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (se U.S.C. App. 2485(j)) or section
628A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371).
TITLE III--FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD PROVISIONS
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/htmi/PLAW-.07publ297.htm
4/4National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(introducing§1605AFSIA)
January 28, 2008 AUTHENT!CATED9
UINFORMATIONNT
GPO
PUBLIC LAW 110-181---JAN. 28, 2008 122 STAT. 3
Public Law 110-181
llOth Congress
An Act
To provide for the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008, as previously enrolled, with certain modifications to address the foreign
sovereign immunities provisions of title 28, United States Code, with respect Jan.28,2008
to the attachment of property in certain judgments against Iraq, the lapse of
statutory authorities for the payment of bonuses, special pays, and similar benefits [H.R.4986]
for members ofthe uniformed services, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, National Defense
Authorization
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TREATMENT OF EXPLANATORY STATEMENT. ActforFiscal
Year2008.
(a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008".
(b) EXPLANATORY STATEMENT.-The Joint Explanatory State
ment submitted by the Committee of Conference for the conference
report to accompany H.R. 1585 of the llOth Congress (Report
110-477) shall be deemed to be part of the legislative history
of this Act and shall have the same effect with respect to the
implementation of this Act as it would have had with respect
to the implementation of H.R. 1585, if such bill had been enacted.
SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) DIVISIONS.-This Act is organized into three divisions as
follows:
(1) Division A-Department of Defense Authorizations.
(2) Division B-Military Construction Authorizations.
(3) Division C-Department of Energy National Security
Authorizations and Other Authorizations.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; treatment of explanatory statement.
Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees.
DIVISION A-DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I-PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A-Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 102. Navy and Marine Corps.
Sec. 103. Air Force.
Sec. 104. Defense-wide activities.
Sec. 105. National Guard and Reserve equipment.
Subtitle B-Army Programs
Sec. 111. Multiyear procurement authority for M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement
Package upgrades.
Sec. 112. Muupgrades.rocurement authority for M2A3/M3A3Bradley fighting vehicle122 STAT. 338 PUBLIC LAW 110-181---.JAN. 28, 2008
(B) what criteria and considerations are appropriate
to determine whether additional Civil Support Teams are
needed and, if so, where they should be located.
(e) COOPERATION OFOTHERAGENCIES.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-The advisory panel required by subsection
(a) may secure directly from the Department of Defense, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy,
the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and
Human Services, and any other department or agency of the
Federal Government information that the panel considers nec
essary for the panel to carry out its duties.
(2) CooPERATION.-The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of Homeland Secretary, the Secretary of Energy, the Attorney
General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and
any other official of the United States shall provide the advisory
panel with full and timely cooperation in carrying out its duties
under this section.
(D REPORT.-Not later than 12 months after the date of the
initial meeting of the advisory panel required by subsection (a),
the advisory panel shall submit to the Secretary of Defense, and
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, a report on activities under this section. The
report shall set forth-
(1) the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
advisory panel for improving the capabilities of the Department
of Defense to provide support to United States civil authorities
in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
or high-yield explosive incident; and
(2) such other findings, conclusions, and recommendations
for improving the capabilities of the Department for homeland
defense as the advisory panel considers appropriate.
SEC. 1083. TERRORISM EXCEPTION TO IMMUNITY.
(a) TERRORISM EXCEPTION TOlMMuNITY.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Chapter 97 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1605 the following:
"§ 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity
of a foreign state
"(a) IN GENERAL.-
"(1) No IMMUNITY.-A foreign state shall not be immune
from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the
States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in
which money damages are sought against a foreign state for
personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture,
extrajudicialkilling, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the
provision of material support or resources for such an act
if such act or provision of material support or resources is
engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign
state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employ
ment, or agency.
"(2) CLAIMHEARD.-The court shall hear a claim under
this section if-
"(A)(i)(I) the foreign state was designated as a state
sponsor of terrorism at the time the act described in para
graph (1) occurred, or was so designated as a result of
such act, and, subject to subclause (II), eitherremains PUBLIC LAW 110-181-JAN. 28, 2008 122 STAT. 339
so designated when the claim is filed under this section
or was so designated within the 6-month period before
the claim is filed under this section; or
"(II) in the case of an action that is refiled under
this section by reason of section 1083(c)(2)(A) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
or is filed under this section by reason of section 1083(c)(3)
of that Act, the foreign state was designated as a state
sponsor of terrorism when the original action or the related
action under section 1605(a)(7) (as in effect before the
enactment of this section) or section 589 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(c)
of division A of Public Law 104-208) was filed;
"(ii) the claimant or the victim was, at the time the
act described in paragraph (1) occurred-
"(!)a national of the United States;
"(II) a member of the armed forces; or
"(III) otherwise an employee of the Government
of the United States, or of an individual performing
a contract awarded by the United States Government,
acting within the scope of the employee's employment;
and
"(iii) in a case in which the act occurred in the foreign
state against which the claim has been brought, the claim
ant has afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity
to arbitrate the claim in accordance with the accepted
international rules of arbitration; or
"(B) the act described in paragraph (1) is related to
Case Number 1:00CV03110 (EGS) in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
"(b) LIMITATIONS.-An action may be brought or maintained
under this section if the action is commenced, or a related action
was commenced under section 1605(a)(7) (before the date of the
enactment of this section) or section 589 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997
(as contained in section 101(c) of division A of Public Law 104-
208) not later than the latter of-
"(1) 10 years after April 24, 1996; or
"(2) 10 years after the date on which the cause of action
arose.
"(c) PRIVATERIGHT OF ACTION.-A foreign state that is or
was a state sponsor of terrorism as described in subsection
(a)(2)(A)(i), and any official, employee, or agent of that foreign
state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment,
or agency, shall be liable to-
"(1) a national of the United States,
"(2) a member of the armed forces,
"(3) an employee of the Government of the United States,
or of an individual performing a contract awarded by the United
States Government, acting within the scope of the employee's
employment, or
"(4) the legal representative of a person described in para-
graph (1), (2), or (3),
for personal injury or death caused by acts described in subsection
(a)(1) of that foreign state, or of an official, employee, or agent
of that foreign state, for which the courts of the United States122 STAT. 340 PUBLIC LAW 110-181---.JAN. 28, 2008
may maintain jurisdiction under this section for money damages.
In any such action, damages may include economic damages,
solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. In any such
action, a foreign state shall be vicariously liable for the acts of
its officials, employees, or agents.
"(d) ADDITIONAL DAMAGES.-After an action has been brought
under subsection (c), actions may also be brought for reasonably
foreseeable property loss, whether insured or uninsured, third party
liability, and loss claims Uhder life and property insurance policies,
by reason of the same acts on which the action under subsection
(c) is based.
"(e) SPECIALMAsTERS.-
"(1) IN GENERAL.-The courts of the United States may
appoint special masters to hear damage claims brought under
this section.
"(2) TRANSFEROF FUNDS.-The Attorney General shall
transfer, from funds available for the program under section
1404C of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c),
to the Administrator of the United States district court in
which any case is pending which has been brought or main
tained under this section such funds as may be required to
cover the costs of special masters appointed under paragraph
(1). Any amount paid in compensation to any such special
master shall constitute an item of court costs.
"(f)APPEAL.-In an action brought under this section, appeals
from orders not conclusively ending the litigation may only be
taken pursuant to section 1292(b) of this title.
"(g) PROPERTY DISPOSITION.-
"(1) IN GENERAL.-In every action filed in a United States
district court in which jurisdiction is alleged under this section,
the filing of a notice of pending action pursuant to this section,
to which is attached a copy of the complaint filed in the action,
shall have the effect of establishing a lien of lis pendens upon
any real property or tangible personal property that is-
"(A) subject to attachment in aid of execution, or execu
tion, under section 1610;
"(B) located within that judicial district; and
"(C) titled in the name of any defendant, or titled
in the name of any entity controlled by any defendant
if such notice contains a statement listing such controlled
entity.
"(2) NOTICE.-A notice of pending action pursuant to this
section shall be filed by the clerk of the district court in the
same manner as any pending action and shall be indexed
by listing as defendants all named defendants and all entities
listed as controlled by any defendant.
"(3) ENFORCEABILITY.-Liensestablished by reason of this
subsection shall be enforceable as provided in chapter 111
of this title.
"(h) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section-
"(1) the term 'aircraft sabotage' has the meaning given
that term in Article 1 of the Convention for the Suppression
of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation;
"(2) the term 'hostage taking' has the meaning given that
term in Article 1 of the International Convention Against the
Taking of Hostages; PUBLIC LAW 110-181--JAN. 28, 2008 122 STAT. 341
"(3) the term 'material support or resources' has the
meaning given that term in section 2339A oftitle 18;
"(4) the term 'armed forces' has the meaning given that
term in section 101 of title 10;
"(5) the term 'national of the United States' has the
meaning given that term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigra
tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
"(6) the term 'state sponsor of terrorism' means a country
the govemment of which the Secretary of State has determined,
for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act
of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), section 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), section 40 of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), or any other provi
sion of law, is a govemment that has repeatedly provided
support for acts of intemational terrorism; and
"(7) the terms 'torture' and 'extrajudicial killing' have the
meaning given those terms in section 3 of the Torture Victim
Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note).".
(2) AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERANALYSIS.-The table of sec
tions at the beginning of chapter 97 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1605 the following:
"1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdimmunity of a foreign state.".
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-
(!) GENERALEXCEPTION.-Section 1605 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended-
(A) in subsection (a)-
(i) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting "or" after the
semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (6)(D), by striking "; or" and
inserting a period; and
(iii) by striking paragraph (7);
(B) by repealing subsections (e) and (f)and
(C) in subsection (g)(l)(A), by striking ''but for sub
section (a)(7)" and inserting ''but for section 1605A".
(2) COUNTERCLAIMS.-Section 1607(a) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by inserting "or 1605A" after "1605".
(3) PROPERTY.-Section 1610 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended-
(A) in subsection (a)(7), by striking "1605(a)(7)" and
inserting "1605A";
(B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking "(5), or (7), or
1605(b)" and inserting "or (5), 1605(b), or 1605A";
(C) in subsection (f),in paragraphs (l)(A) and (2)(A),
by inserting "(as in effect before the enactment of section
1605A) or section 1605A" after "1605(a)(7)"; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
"(g) PROPERTY INCERTAINACTIONS.-
"(1) IN GENERAL.-Subject to paragraph (3), the property
of a foreign state against which a judgment is entered under
section 1605A, and the property of an agency or instrumentality
of such a state, including property that is a separate juridical
entity or is an interest held directly or indirectly in a separate
juridical entity, is subject to attachment in aid of execution,
and execution, upon that judgment as provided in this section,
regardless of-122 STAT. 342 PUBLIC LAW 110-181---.JAN. 28, 2008
"(A) the level of economic control over the property
by the government of the foreign state;
"(B) whether the profits of the property go to that
government;
"(C) the degree to which officials of that government
manage the property or otherwise control its daily affairs;
"(D) whether that government is the sole beneficiary
in interest of the property; or
"(E) whether establishing the property as a separate
entity would entitle the foreign state to benefits in United
States courts while avoiding its obligations.
"(2) UNITEDSTATESSOVEREIGN IMMUNITY INAPPLICABLE.
Any property of a foreign state, or agency or instrumentality
of a foreign state, to which paragraph (1) applies shall not
be immune from attachment in aid of execution, or execution,
upon a judgment entered under section 1605A because the
property is regulated by the United States Government by
reason of action taken against that foreign state under the
Trading With the Enemy Act or the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act.
"(3) THIRD-PARTYJOINT PROPERTYHOLDERS.-Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to supersede the authority
of a court to prevent appropriately the impairment of an
interest held by a person who is not liable in the action giving
rise to a judgment in property subject to attachment in aid
of execution, or execution, upon such judgment.".
(4) VICTIMSOFCRIMEACT.-Section 1404C(a)(3) of the Vic
tims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c(a)(3)) is amended
by striking "December 21, 1988 with respect to which an inves
tigation or" and inserting "October 23, 1983, with respect to
which an investigation or civil or criminal".
(c) APPLICATION TOPENDINGCASES.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any claim arising under section 1605A of title
28, United States Code.
(2) PRIORACTIONS.-
(A) IN GENERAL.-With respect to any action that-
(i)was brought under section 1605(a)(7) of title
28, United States Code, or section 589 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section lOl(c)
of division A of Public Law 104-208), before the date
of the enactment of this Act,
(ii) relied upon either such provision as creating
a cause of action,
(iii) has been adversely affected on the grounds
that either or both of these provisions fail to create
a cause of action against the state, and
(iv) as of such date of enactment, is before the
courts in any form, including on appeal or motion
under rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce
dure,
that action, and any judgment in the action shall, on motion
made by plaintiffs to the United States district court where
the action was initially brought, or judgment in the action
was initially entered, be given effect as if the action had PUBLIC LAW 110-181---JAN. 28, 2008 122 STAT. 343
originally been filed under section 1605A(c) of title 28,
United States Code.
(B) DEFENSESWAIVED.-The defenses of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, and limitation period are waived-
(i) in any action with respect to which a motion
is made under subparagraph (A), or
(ii) in any action that was originally brought,
before the date of the enactment of this Act, under
section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, or
section 589 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1997 (as contained in section 101(c) of division A of
Public Law 104-208), and is refiled under section
1605A(c) of title 28, United States Code,
to the extent such defenses are based on the claim in
the action.
(C) TIME LIMITATIONS.-Amotion may be made or an
action may be refiled under subparagraph (A) only-
(i) if the original action was commenced not later
than the latter of-
(1)10 years after April24, 1996; or
(II) 10 years after the cause of action arose;
and
(ii) within the 60-day period beginning on the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(3)RELATEDACTIONS.-If an action arising out of an act Deadline.
or incident has been timely commenced under section 1605(a)(7)
of title 28, United States Code, or section 589 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appro
priations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(c) of division
A of Public Law 104-208), any other action arising out of
the same act or incident may be brought under section 1605A
of title 28, United States Code, if the action is commenced
not later than the latter of 60 days after-
(A) the date of the entry of judgment in the original
action; or
(B) the date ofthe enactment of this Act.
(4) PRESERVING THE JURISDICTIONOF THE COURTS.
Nothing in section 1503 of the Emergency Wartime Supple
mental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11, 117 Stat.
579) has ever authorized, directly or indirectly, the making
inapplicable of any provision of chapter 97 of title 28, United
States Code, or the removal of the jurisdiction of any court
of the United States.
(d) APPLICABILITY TOIRAQ.-
(1) APPLICABILITY.- The President may waive any provision President.
of this section with respect to Iraq, insofar as that provision Waiverauthority.
may, in the President's determination, affect Iraq or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, if the President determines that-
(A) the waiver is in the national security interest of
the United States;
(B) the waiver will promote the reconstruction of, the
consolidation of democracy in, and the relations of the
United States with, Iraq; and
(C) Iraq continues to be a reliable ally of the United
States and partner in combating acts of international ter
rorism.122 STAT. 344 PUBLIC LAW 110-181---.JAN. 28, 2008
Applicability. (2) TEMPORALSCOPE.-The authority under paragraph (1)
shall apply-
(A) with respect to any conduct or event occurring
before or on the date of the enactment of this Act;
(B) with respect to any conduct or event occurring
before or on the date of the exercise of that authority;
and
(C) regardless of whether, or the extent to which, the
exercise of that authority affects any action filed before,
on, or after the date of the exercise of that authority
orof the enactment of this Act.
President. (3) NOTIFICATION TOCONGRESS.-Awaiver by the President
under paragraph (1) shall cease to be effective 30 days after
it is made unless the President has notified Congress in writing
of the basis for the waiver as determined by the President
under paragraph (1).
(4) SENSE OF CONGRESS.-lt is the sense of the Congress
that the President, acting through the Secretary of State, should
work with the Government of Iraq on a state-to-state basis
to ensure compensation for any meritorious claims based on
terrorist acts committed by the Saddam Hussein regime against
individuals who were United States nationals or members of
the United States Armed Forces at the time of those terrorist
acts and whose claims cannot be addressed in courts in the
United States due to the exercise of the waiver authority under
paragraph (1).
(e) SEVERABILITY.-Ifany provision of this section or the amend
ments made by this section, or the application of such provision
to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of
this section and such amendments, and the application of such
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other cir
cumstances, shall not be affected by such invalidation.
TITLE XI-CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
MATTERS
Sec. 1101. Extension of authority to waive annual limitation on total compensation
paid to Federal civilian employees working overseas undeareas of
United States Central Command.
Sec. 1102. Continuatioof life insurance coverage for Federal employees called to
active duty.
Sec. 1103. Transportatioof dependents, household effects, and personal property
sulted from disease or injury incurred in the Central Command area of
responsibility.
Sec. 1104. Special benefifor civilian employees assigneon deployment tem-
porary change of station.
Sec. 1105. Death gratuity authorized for Federal employees.
Sec. 1106. Modifications to the National Security Personnel System.
Sec. 1107. Requirement for full implementaof personnel demonstratioproject.
Sec. 1108. Authority for inclusion of certain Office of Defense Research and Engi-
neering positions in experimentpersonnel program for scientific and
technical personnel.
Sec. 1109.personnel torivate sector organizations.of information technology
Sec. 1110. Compensationfor Federal wage system employees for certaintravel
hours.
Sec. 1111. Travel compensation for wage grade personnel.
Sec. 1112. Accumulation of annual leave by senior level employees.
Sec. 1113. Uniform allowances for civilian employees.Section 1245 (c) ofNational Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012H.R.l540
enr !tundrr d rmdft< hiongrrss
ofthr
iinitrd ~tar o rfas mrrica
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the fifth day of Januartwo thousand and eleven
an act
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Depart
ment of Defense, for miliconstructioand for defense activitof the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''NationalDefense Authorization
Act for FiscaYear 2012".
SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) DIVISIONS.-This Act is organized into five divisions as
follows:
(1)Division A-Department of DefenseAuthorizations.
(2)Division B-Military Construction Authorizations.
(3) Division C-Department of Energy National Security
Authorizations and Other Authorizations.
(4)Division D-Funding Tables.
(5) DivisionE-SBIR and STTR Reauthorization.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents for thisAct
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees.
DIVISION A-DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLEI-PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A-Authorizatof Appropriations
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B-ArmPrograms
Sec. 112. Limitation on retirement of C-23 aircraft.t vehicles.
Sec. 113. Multiyear procureauthority for airframes for Army UH--SOMIHH-
60M helicopters and Navy MH--SORIMH-helicopters.
Subtitle C-NavPrograms
Sec.121. Multiyear procuremauthority for mission avionics and common cock
pits for Navy--SORJShelicoRters.
Sec.122. Separate procurement line item for certain Littoral Combat Ship mission
modules.
Sec.123. Life-cycle cost-benefit analysis on maintenanceand sustain
Sec.124. Extension Ford-class aircraft carrier construction authority.
Subtitle D-AiForce Programs
Sec. 131. Strategic airlift aircraft force structure. H. R.1540-350
defenses that is classified as of, or after, the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 1245. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINAN·
CIAL SECTOR OF IRAN.
(a) FINDINGS.-Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On November 21, 2011, the Secretary of the Treasury
issued a finding under section 5318A of title 31, United States
Code, that identified Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money
laundering concern.
(2)In that finding, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Net
work of the Department of the Treasury wrote, "The Central
Bank of Iran, which regulates Iranian banks, has assisted
designated Iranian banks by transferring billions of dollars
tothese banks in 2011. In mid-2011, the CBI transferred sev
eral billion dollars to designated banks, including ·Saderat,
Mellat, EDBI and Melli, through a variety of payment schemes.
In making these transfers, the CBI attempted to evade sanc
tions by minimizing the direct involvement of large inter
national banks with both CBI and designated Iranian banks.".
(3) On November 22, 2011, the Under Secretary of the
Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David
Cohen, wrote, "Treasury is calling out the entire Iranian
banking sector, including the Central Bank of Iran, as posing
terrorist financing, proliferation financing, and money laun
dering risks for the global financial system.".
(b) DESIGNATION OFFINANCIAL SECTOROFIRAN AS OFPRIMARY
MoNEY LAUNDERINGCoNCERN.-The financial sector of Iran,
including the Central Bank of Iran, is designated as a primary
money laundering concern for purposes of section 5318A of title
31, United States Code, because of the threat to government and
financial institutions resulting from the illicit activities of the
Government of Iran, including its pursuit of nuclear weapons, sup
port for international terrorism, and efforts to deceive responsible
financial institutions and evade sanctions.
(c) FREEZINGOFAsSETSOFIRANIANFINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
The President shall, pursuant to the International Emergency Eco
nomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), block and prohibit
all transactions in all property and interests in property of an
Iranian financial institutionif such property and interests in prop
erty are in the United States, come within the United States,
or are or come within the possession or control of a United States
person.
(d) IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECTTOTHE CENTRAL
BANKOFIRANANDOTHERIRANIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Except as specifically provided in this
subsection, beginning on the date that is 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President-
(A) shall prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose
strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States
of a correspondent account or a payable-through account
by a foreign financial institutionthat the President deter
mines has knowingly conducted or facilitated any signifi
cant financial transaction with the Central Bank of Iran
or another Iranian financial institution designated by the
Secretary of the Treasury for the imposition of sanctions H. R. 1540-351
pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(B)may impose sanctions pursuant to the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
with respect to the Central Bank of Iran.
(2) ExCEPTIONFORSALESOFFOOD,MEDICINEA , NDMEDICAL
graph (1) with respect to any person for conducting or facili
tating a transaction for the sale of food, medicine, or medical
devices to Iran.
(3) APPLICABILITY OFSANCTIONS WITHRESPECTTOFOREIGN
CENTRALBANKS.-Except as provided in paragraph (4), sanc
tions imposed under paragraph (1)(A) shall apply with respect
to a foreign financial institution owned or controlled by the
government of a foreign country, including a central bank of
a foreign country, only insofar as it engages in a financial
transaction for the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum
products to or from Iran conducted or facilitated on or after
that date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment
ofthisAct.
(4) APPLICABILITY OF SANCTIONS WITHRESPECTTO PETRO
LEUMTRANSACTIONS.-
(A) REPORTREQUIRED.-Not later than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 60 days
thereafter, the Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of State, and the Director of
on the availability and price of petroleum and petroleumt
products produced in countries other than Iran in the GO
day period preceding the submission ofthe report.
(B)DETERMINATIOR NEQillRED.-Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every
180 days thereafter, the President shall make a determina
tion, based on the reports required by subparagraph (A),
of whether the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum
products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient
to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products
from Iran to reduce significantly in volume their purchases
from Iran.
(C) APPLICATIONOF SANCTIONS.-Except as provided
in subparagraph (D), sanctions imposed under paragraph
(1)(A) shall apply with respect to a financial transaction
conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution
. on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of
or petroleum products from Iran the ifrthe Presidentoledeter
mines pursuant to subparagraph (B) that there is a suffi
cient supply of petroleum and petroleum products from
countries other than Iran to permit a significant reduction
in the volume of petroleum and petroleum products pur
chased from Iran by or through foreign financial institu
tions.
(D) EXCEPTION.-Sanctions imposed pursuant to para
graph (1) shall not apply with respect to a foreign financial
institution ifthe President determines and reports to Con
gress, not later than 90 days after the date on whichExecutive Order 13599FEDERALREGISTER
Vol. 77 Wednesday,
No. 26 February 8, 2012
Part Ill
The President
Executive Order 13599-Biocking Property of the Government of Iran and
Iranian Financial Institutions 6659
Federal Register
Presidential Documents
Vol.77,No. 26
Wednesday, Februa8,2012
Title3- Executive Order 13599 of February 5, 2012
Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Fi
The President
nancial Institutions
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emer
gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),section 1245 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) (NDAA},and
section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in order
to take' additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared
in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, particularly in light of the
deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks
to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficienciesIran's anti
money laundering regime and the weaknesses in its implementation, and
the continuing and unacceptable risk posed to the international financial
system by Iran's activities, hereby order:
Section 1. (a} All property and interestsin property of the Government
of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, that arein the United States,
that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come
within the possession or control of any United States person, including
any foreign branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(b) All property and interests in property of any Iranian financinstitu~
tion, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States,
that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come
within the possession or control of any United States person, including
any foreign branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
{c) All property and interests in property that are in the United States,
that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come
within the possession or control of any United States person, including
any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not
be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Sec
retary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported
to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property
and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of
--------- .-i:_ices--e-c~i--i-ed..Jn.~sectiQ_I)..:~J>~(Q)(2-)::.of.:::IEEP.A"::(50::.U$:C::.::r7-02(h)(2·)):::l)y;:..~
·:-::--:::..:::::.::::::.=:.:_·___to, orfor flle-oenefit of any person whose property and interests in property
are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair
my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order
12957, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of
this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not
limited to: (a) the making of any contribution oproyis ifou.n.ds,goods, _
or services by, to, or for the-benefit·or any p-erson whose property and
interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services
from any such person. 6660 Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 26/Wednesday, February 8, 2012/Presidential Documents
Sec.4.(a) The prohibitions in 1of this order apply except to
the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or
licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding
any contract entered or any license or permit granted prior to the
effective date of this order.
(bThe prohibitions in section 1 of this order do not apply to property
and intereinsproperty of the Government of Iran that were blocked
pursuant to Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, and thereafter
made subject to the transfer directinExecutive Order 12281
ofJanuary 19, 1981, and implementing regulations thereunder.
Sec5.{a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United
States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes
a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in
this orderis prohibited.
(bAny conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth
in this order is prohibited.
Sec.6.Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for
the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees,
grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec.7.For the purposes of this order: (a) the term "person" means an
individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture,
corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen,
permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United
States or any jurisdwithinthe United States (inclforeign
branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term "Government of Iran" means the Government of Iran, any
political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereqf, including the Central
Bank of Iran, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or
on behalf of, the Government of Iran;
(e) the term "Iran" means the territory of Iran and any other territory
or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental
shelf, overich the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign
rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial
or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic
activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements; and
(fthe term "Iranian financial imeans a financial institution
organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction within Iran (including
foreign branches), any financial institution in Iran, any financial institution,
wherever located, owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, and
any financial instiwherever located, owned or controlled by any
of the foregoing.
Sec.8.For those persons whose property and interests in property are
blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence
in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds
or other assets instantprior notice to such persons of measures
..·.--~"·~,~~--..~..··:..::=:-::-....::=!'? :ou!Jd,~~entaere-""-fu.Y·s':":~lea!-ura
-- -----------····------·-I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing
the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, there need be
no prior notice of a listing or detmade pursuant to section
1 of this order.
Sec.9.The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation
of rules and regulationemp~odll P'?'\gsranted_to the President
-by IEEPAasmay be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order,
other than the purposes described in section 11. The Secretary of the Treasury
may redelegate any of these functions and authorities to other officers and
agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law.Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 26/Wed.nesday, February 8, 2012/Presidential Documents 6661
All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take
all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions
of this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, is hereby authorized to exercise the functions and authorities con
ferred upon the President by section 1245(d)(l)(A) of the NDAA and to
redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities con
ferred upon the President by section 1245(g)(1) of the NDAA to the extent
necessary to exercise the other functions and authorities delegated in this
section and may redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with
applicable law.
Sec. 11. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of National Intelligence,
is hereby authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred
upon the President by section 1245(d)(4)(D) of the NDAA and to redelegate
these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary
of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby further
authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the
President by sections 1245(e)(1) and 1245(e)(2) of the NDAAand to redelegate
these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary
of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby further
authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the
President by section 1245(g)(1) of the NDAA to the extent necessary to
exercise the other functions and authorities delegated in this section and
may redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable
law.
Sec. 12. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities,
its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 13. The measures taken pursuant to this order are in response to
actions of the Government of Iran occurring after the conclusion of the
1981 Algiers Accords, and are intended solely as a response to those later
actions.6662 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 26/Wednesday, February 8, 2012/Presidential Documents
Sec. 14. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on
February 6, 2012.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 5, 2012.
[FR Doc. 2012-3097
Filed 2-7-1211:15 am)
Billingode 3295-F2-PIran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of2012
10 August 2012H.R.l905
<Bni tlundr1 rdrmdft h ongrrss
ofthr
ilnitrd ~tat or f9s -mrrica
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washion Tuesday,
the third day of Janutwo tltousand and twelve
an act
To strengthen Iran sanctions laws for the purpose of compelling Iran to abandon
its pursuit of nuclear weapons and otheactivities, and for other
purposes.
the United States of America in Congress assembled,ntatofes
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORTTITLE.-This Act may be cited as the "Iran Threat
Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012".
(b) TABLEOF CONTENTS.-The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec1.Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I-EXPANSIONOF MULTILATERAL SANCTIONS REGIME WITH
RESPECT TO IRAN
Sec. 101. Sense of Congress on enforcementsanctions regime and
Sec. 102. Diplomatic efforts to expand multilateral sanctions regime.
TITLE II-EXPANSIOOF SANCTIONS RELATING TO THE ENERGY SECTOR
IRANRAN AND PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BY
Subtitle A-Expanof the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996
Sec. 201. Expansion of sanctiontothe energy sector of Iran.
Sec. 202Iran and evasion of sanctions by shipping companies.omon
Sec. 203. Expansion of sanctions with respect to development by Iran of weapons
Sec. 204. Expansion of sanctions available under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
Sec. 205. Modification of waiver standard under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
Sec. 206. Briefings on implementation of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
Sec. 208. Sense of Congress on energy sector of Iran.ctions Act of 1996.
Subtitle B-AdditMeasures Relating to SAgainIran
Sec. 211servictotransport certain goods related to proliferation or terrorism shipping
activities to Iran.
Sec. 212. Imposition of sanctions with respect to provision of underwriting services
the National Iranian Tanker Company.National Iranian Oil Company or
Sec. 213. Imposition of sanctions with respect to purchase, subscription to, or facili
tation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt.
Sec. 214sanctioned by United Nations Security Council resolutions.s
Sec. 215. Imposition of sanctions with respewith persons sanc
tioned for ceactivitrelatito terrorior proliferaofon
weapons of mass destruCtion. H.R.l905-2
Sec. 216. Expansion of, and reports on, mandatory sanctions with respect to finan
cial institutionsthat engage in certain activities relating to Iran.
Sec. 217. Continuation in effect of sanctions with respect to the Government of
Iran, the Central Bank of Iran, and sanctions evaders.
Sec. 218. Liability of parent companies for violations of sanctions by foreign sub
sidiaries.
Sec. 219. Disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to
sanctionable activities.
Sec. 220. Reports on, and authorization of imposition of sanctions with respect to,
the provision of specialized financial messaging services to the Central
Bank of Iran and other sanctioned Iranian financial institutions.
Sec. 221. Identification of, and immigration restrictions on, senior officials of the
Government of Iran and their family members.
Sec. 222. Sense of Congress and rule of construction relating to certain authorities
of State and local governments.
Sec. 223. Government Accountability Office report on foreign entities that invest in
the energy sector of Iran or export refined petroleum products to Iran.
Sec. 224. Reporting on the importation to and exportation from Iran of crude oil
and refined petroleum products.
TITLE III-SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD
CORPS
Subtitle A-Identification of, and Sanctions With Respect to, Officials, Agents, Affili
ates,and Supporters of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and Other Sanctioned
Persons
Sec. 301. Identification of, and imposition of sanctions with respect to, officials,
agents, and affiliates of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Sec. 302. Identification of, and imposition of sanctions with respect to, persons that
support or conduct certain transactions with Iran's Revolutionary Guard
Corys or other sanctioned persons.
Sec. 303. Identification of, and imposition of measures with respect to, foreign gov
ernment agencies carrying out activities or transactions with certain
Iran-affiliatedpersons.
Sec. 304. Rule of construction.
Subtitle B-Additional Measures Relating to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps
Sec. 311. Expansion of procurement prohibition to foreign persons that engage in
certain transactions with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Sec. 312. Determinations of whether the National Iranian Oil Company and the
National Iranian Tanker Company are agents or affiliates of Iran's Rev
olutionary Guard Corps.
TITLE IV-MEASURES RELATING TO HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN IRAN
Subtitle A-Expansion of Sanctions Relating to Human Rights Abuses in Iran
Sec. 401. Imposition of sanctions on certain persons responsible for or complicit in
human rights abuses committed against citizens of Iran or their family
members after the June 12, 2009, elections in Iran.
Sec. 402. Imposition of sanctions with respect to the transfer of goods or tech
.nologies to Iran that are likely to be used to commit human rights
abuses.
Sec. 403. Imposition of sanctions with respect to persons who engage in censorship
or other related activities against citizens of Iran.
Subtitle B-Additional Measures to Promote Human Rights
Sec. 411. Codification of sanctions with respect to grave human rights abuses by
the governments of Iran and Syria using information technology.
Sec. 412. Clarification of sensitive technologies for purposes of procurement ban
under Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment
Act of2010.
Sec. 413. Expedited consideration of requests for authorization of certain human
rights-, humanitarian-, and democracy-related activities with respect to
Iran.
Sec. 414. Comprehensive strategy to promote Internet freedom and access to infor
mation in Iran.
Sec. 415. Statement of policy on political prisoners.
TITLE V-MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 501. Exclusion of citizens of Iran seeking education relating to the nuclear and
energy sectors of Iran. H.R.1905-3
Sec. 503. Technical correction to sectio1245etof the National Defense Authoriza
tion Act for Fiscal Yea2012.
Sec. 504. Expansion of sanctions under section 1245 of the National Defense Au-
thorization Act for Fiscal Yea2012.
Sec. 505. Reports on natural gas exports from Iran.
Sec. 506. Report on membership of Iran in intemational organizations.
Sec. 507. Sense of Congress on exportation of goods, services, and technologies for
aircraft produced in the United States.
TITLE VI-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. Implementation; penalties.
Sec. 602. Applicability to certain intelligence activities.
Sec. 603. Applicability to certain natural gas projects.
Sec. 605. Termination.truction with respect to use of force against Iran and Syria.
TITLE VII-SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO HUMANRIGHTS ABUSES IN
SYRIA
Sec. 702. Imposition of sanctions with respect to certain persons who are respon
sible for or complicit in human rights abuses committed against citizens
of Syria or their family members.
Sec. 703. Imposition of sanctions with respect to the transfer of goods or tech
nologies to Syria that are likely to be used to commit human rights
abuses.
Sec. 704. Imposition of sanctions with respect to persons who engage in censorship
or other forms ofrepression in Syria.
Sec. 705. Waiver.
Sec. 706. Termination.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, in this Act:
(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMI'ITEES.-The term
"appropriate congressional committees" has the meaning given
that term in section 14 of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note).
(2) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION.-The term "financial trans
action" means any transfer of value involving a financial
institution, including the transfer of forwards, futures, options,
swaps, or precious metals, including gold, silver, platinum,
and palladium.
(3) KNOWINGLY.-The term ''knowingly" has the meaning
given that term in section 14 of the Iran Sanctions Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note).
(4) UNITED STATES PERSON.-The term "United States per
son" has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment
Act of2010 (22 U.S.C. 8511).
TITLE I-EXPANSION OF MULTILAT
ERAL SANCTIONS REGIME WITH RE
SPECT TO IRAN
SEC. 101. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ENFORCEMENT OF MULTILATERAL
SANCTIONS REGIME AND EXPANSION AND IMPLEMENTA
TION OF SANCTIONS LAWS.
It is the sense of Congress that the goal of compelling Iran
to abandon efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and
other threatening activities can be effectively achieved through
a comprehensive policy that includes economic sanctions, diplomacy, H. R.1905-45
with appropriate consideration for the national security
interests of the United States; and
(4) to publicly call for the release of Iranian dissidents
by name and raise awareness with respect to individual cases
of Iranian dissidents and prisoners of conscience, as appropriate
and if requested by the dissidents or prisoners themselves
or their families.
TITLE V-MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 501. EXCLUSION OF CITIZENS OF IRAN SEEKING EDUCATION
RELATING TO THE NUCLEAR AND ENERGY SECTORS OF
IRAN.
(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of State shall deny a visa
to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude from
the United States, any alien who is a citizen of Iran that the
Secretary of State determines seeks to enter the United States
to participate in coursework at an institution of higher education
(as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) to prepare the alien for a career in the energy
sector of Iran or in nuclear science or nuclear engineering or a
related field in Iran.
(b) APPLICABILITY.-Subsection (a) applies with respect to visa
. applications filed on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 502. INTERESTS IN CERTAIN FINANCIAL ASSETS OF IRAN.
(a) INTERESTS IN BLOCKED AsSETS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
any other provision of law, including any provision of law
relating to sovereign immunity, and preempting any incon
sistent provision of State law, a financial asset that is-
(A) held in the United States for a foreign securities
intermediary doing business in the United States;
(B) a blocked asset (whether or not subsequently
unblocked) that is property described in subsection (b);
and
(C) equal in value to a financial asset of Iran, including
an asset of the central bank or monetary authority of
the Government of Iran or any agency or instrumentality
of that Government, that such foreign securities inter
mediary or a related intermediary holds abroad,
shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution
in order to satisfY any judgment to the extent of any compen
satory damages awarded against Iran for damages for personal
injury or death caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing,
aircraft sabotage, or hostage-taking, or the provision of material
support or resources for such an act.
(2) COURTDETERMINATION REQUIRED.-In order to ensure
that Iran is held accouP.table for paying the judgments
described in paragraph (1) and in furtherance of the broader
goals of this ACt to. sanction Iran, prior to an award turning
over any asset pursuant to execution or attachment in aid
of execution with respect to any judgments against Iran
described in paragraph (1),the court shall determine whether
Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the H. R. 1905-46
assets described in subsection (b) and that no other person
possesses a constitutionally protected interest in the assets
described in subsection (b) under the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. To the extent the court
determines that a person other than Iran holds-
(A) equitable title to, or a beneficial interest in, the
assets described in subsection (b) (excluding a custodial
interest of a foreign securities intermediary or a related
intermediary that holds the assets abroad for the benefit
oflran); or
(B) a constitutionally protected interest in the assets
described in subsection (b),
such assets shall be available only for execution or attachment
in aid of execution to the extent of Iran's equitable title or
beneficial interest therein and to the extent such execution
or attachment does not infringe upon such constitutionally pro
tected interest.
(b) FINANCIAL AsSETS DESCRffiED.-The financial assets
described in this section are the financial assets that are identified
in and the subject of proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in Peterson et al.
v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case No. 10 Civ. 4518 (BSJ)
(GWG), that were restrained by restraining notices and levies
secured by the plaintiffs in those proceedings, as modified by court
order dated June 27, 2008, and extended by court orders dated
June 23, 2009, May 10, 2010, and June 11, 2010, so long as
such assets remain restrained by court order.
(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this section shall
be construed-
(1) to affect the availability, or lack thereof, of a right
to satisfy a judgment in any other action against a terrorist
party in any proceedings other than proceedings referred to
in subsection (b);or
(2) to apply to assets other than the assets described in
subsection (b), or to preempt State law, including the Uniform
Commercial Code, except as expressly provided in subsection
(a)(1).
(d) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:
(1) BLOCKED ASSET.-The term ''blockedasset"-
(A) means any asset seized or frozen by the United
States under section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy
Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)) or under section 202 or 203
of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701 and 1702); and
(B) does not include property that-
(i) is subject to a license issued by the United
States Government for final payment, transfer, or dis
position by or to a person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States in connection with a transaction
for which the issuance of the license has been specifi
cally required by a provision of law other than the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or the United Nations Participa
tion Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.); or
(ii) is property subject to the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, or that enjoys equivalent privileges H. R. 1905-47
and immunities under the laws of the United States,
and is being used exclusively for diplomatic or consular
purposes.
(2) FINANCIAL ASSET; SECURITIES INTERMEDIARY.-The
terms "financial asset" and "securities intermediary'' have the
meanings given those terms in the Uniform Commercial Code,
but the former includes cash.
(3) IRAN.-The term "Iran" means the Government of Iran,
including the central bank or monetary authority of that
Government and any agency or instrumentality of that Govern
ment.
(4) PERSON.-
(A) IN GENERAL.-The term "person" means an indi
vidual or entity.
(B) ENTITY.-The term "entity'' means a partnership,
association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, sub
group, or other organization.
(5)TERRORISTPARTY.-The term "terrorist party" has the
meaning given that term in section 201(d) of the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act of2002 (28 U.S.C. 1610 note).
(6) UNITED STATES.-The term ''United States" includes
all territory and waters, continental,or insular, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.
(e) TECHNICALCHANGESTO THE FOREIGNSOVEREIGNIMMUNI
TIESACT.-
(1) TITLE 28, UNITEDSTATESCODE.-Section 1610 of title
28, United States Code, is amended-
(A) in subsection (a)(7), by inserting after "section
1605A''the following: "or section 1605(a)(7) (as such section
was in effect on January 27, 2008)"; and
(B) in subsection (b)-
(i) in paragraph (2)-
(I) by striking "(5), 1605(b), or 1605A" and
inserting "(5) or 1605(b)"; and
(II) by striking the period at the end and
inserting " or"· and
(ii) by adding' after paragraph (2) the following:
"(3) the judgment relates to a claim for which the agency
or instrumentality is not immune by virtue of section 1605A
of this chapter or section 1605(a)(7) of this chapter (as such
section was in effect on January 27, 2008), regardless of
whether the property is or was involved in the act upon which
the claim is based.".
(2) TERRORISM RISKINSURANCE ACTOF2002.-Section 201(a)
of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1610
note) is amended by striking "section 1605(a)(7)" and inserting
"section 1605A or 1605(a)(7) (as such section was in effect
on January 27, 2008)".
SEC. 503. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO SECTION 1245 OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR2012.
(a) EXCEPTIONFOR SALES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.
(1)IN GENERAL.-Section 1245(d)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(2))
is amended-28 U.S. Code Chapter 97§ 1602. Findings and declaration of purpose, 28 USCA § 1602
United States CodeAnnotated
Title28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV.Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97·Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. § 1602
§ 1602. Findings and declaration of purpose
Currentness
The Congress finds that the determination by United States courts of the claims of foreign states to immunity from the
jurisdictionof such courts would serve the interests ofjustice and would protect the rights of both foreign states and litigants
in United States courts. Under international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their
commercial activities are concerned, and their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction of judgments
rendered against them in connection with their commercial activities. Claimsof foreign states to immunity should henceforth
be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct 21, 1976, 90 Stat 2892.)
Notes of Decisions (107)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1602,28 USCA § 1602
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1603. Definitions, 28 USCA § 1603
United States CodeAnnotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV.Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. §1603
§1603. Definitions
Effective: February 18, 2005
Currentness
For purposes of this chapter--
(a) A "foreign state", except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an
agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defmed in subsection (b).
(b) An "agency or instrumentality of a foreign state" means any entity--
(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and
(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership
interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and
(3) which is neither a citizenf a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c) and (e) ofthis title, nor created
under the laws of any third country.
(c) The "United States" includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(d) A "commercial activity" means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction
or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or
particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.
(e) A "commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state" means commercial activity carried on by such
state and having substantial contact with the United States.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2892; amended Pub.L. 109-2,§ 4(b)(2), Feb. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 12.)
Notes ofDecisions (375)
'IVESTlAV¥ © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1604. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction, 28 USCA § 1604
United States CodeAnnotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV.Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. § 1604
§ 1604. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction
Currentness
Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment ofthis Act a foreign
state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections
1605 to 1607 of this chapter.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2892.)
Notes of Decisions (156)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1604,28 USCA § 1604
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLA\h! © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a..., 28 USCA § 1605
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
Proposed Legislation
United States Code Annotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV.Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. § 1605
§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state
Effective:January 28, 2008
Currentness
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case--
(1) in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of
the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver;
(2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an
act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act
outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act
causes a direct effect in thenited States;
(3) in which rights in property taken in violation of intemationallaw are in issue and that property or any property exchanged
for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States
by the foreign state; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or
instrumentality of the foreign state andthat agency or instrumentality is engaged ina commercial activity intheUnited States;
(4) in which rights in property in the United States acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated
in the United States are in issue;
(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above, in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for
personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or
omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office
or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to--
(A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function
regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or
(B) any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or
interference with contract rights; or
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. § 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a..., 28 USCA § 1605
(6) in which the action is brought, either to enforce an agreement made by the foreign state with or for the benefit of a private
party to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisen or which may arise between the parties with respect to a
defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration under
the laws of the United States, or to confirm an award made pursuant to such an agreement to arbitrate, if (A) the arbitration
takes place or is intended to take place in the United States, (B) the agreement or award is or may be governed by a treaty or
other international agreement in force for the United States calling for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards,
(C) the underlying claim, save for the agreement to arbitrate, could have been brought in a United States court under this
section or section 1607, or (D) paragraph (I) of this subsection is otherwise applicable.
(7) Repealed. Pub.L. 110-181, Div. A,§ l083(b)(l)(A)(iii), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 341
(b) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any case in which a suit in
admiralty is brought to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel or cargo of the foreign state, which maritime lien is based upon
a commercial activity of the foreign state: Provided, That--
(1) notice of the suit is given by delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person, or his agent, having
possession of the vessel or cargo against which the maritime lien is asserted; and if the vessel or cargo is arrested pursuant
to process obtained on behalf of the party bringing the suit, the service of process of arrest shall be deemed to constitute
valid delivery of such notice, but the party bringing the suit shall be liable for any damages sustained by the foreign state as
a result of the arrest if the party bringing the suit had actual or constructive knowledge that the vessel or cargo of a foreign
state was involved; and
(2) notice to the foreign state of the commencement of suit as provided in section 1608 of this title is initiated within ten days
either of the delivery of notice as provided in paragraph (1) ofthis subsection or, in the case of a party who was unaware that
the vessel orcargo of a foreign state was involved, of the date such party determined the existence of the foreign state'sinterest.
(c) Whenever notice is delivered under subsection (b)(1), the suit to enforce a maritime lien shall thereafter proceed and shall
be heard and determined according to the principles oflaw and rules of practice of suits in rem whenever it appears that, had the
vessel been privately owned and possessed, a suit in rem might have been maintained. A decree against the foreign state may
include costs of the suit and, if the decree is for a money judgment, interest as ordered by the court, except that the court may
not award judgment against the foreign state in an amount greater than the value of the vessel or cargo upon which the maritime
lien arose. Such value shall be determined as of the time notice is served under subsection (b)(1). Decrees shall be subject to
appeal and revision as provided in other cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Nothing shall preclude the plaintiff in any
proper case from seeking relief in personam in the same action brought to enforce a maritime lien as provided in this section.
(d) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction ofthe courts of the United States in any action brought to foreclose
a preferred mortgage, as defmed in section 31301 of title 46. Such action shall be brought, heard, and determined in accordance
with the provisions of chapter 313 of title 46 and in accordance with the principles of law and rules of practice of suits in rem,
whenever it appears that had the vessel been privately owned and possessed a suit in rem might have been maintained.
(e), (f) Repealed. Pub.L. 110-181, Div. A, Title X,§ 1083(b)(l)(B), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 341
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 § 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a..., 28 USCA § 1605
(g) Limitation on discovery.-
(1) In general.-(A) Subject to paragraph (2), if an action is filed that would otherwise be barred by section 1604, but for
section 1605A, the court, upon request of the Attorney General, shall stay any request, demand, or order for discovery on the
United States that the Attorney General certifies would significantly interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution,
or a national security operation, related to the incident that gave rise to the cause of action, until such time as the Attorney
General advises the court that such request, demand, or order will no longer so interfere.
(B) A stay under this paragraph shall be in effect during the 12-month period beginning on the date on which the court issues
the order to stay discovery. The court shall renew the order to stay discovery for additional 12-month periods upon motion by
the United States if the Attorney General certifies that discovery would significantly interfere with a criminal investigation
or prosecution, or a national security operation, related to the incident that gave rise to the cause of action.
(2) Sunset.--( A) Subject to subparagraph (B), no stay shall be granted or continued in effect under paragraph (I) after the
date that is I0 years after the date on which the incident that gave rise to the cause of action occurred.
(B) After the period referred to in subparagraph (A), the court, upon request of the Attorney General, may stay any request,
demand, or order for discovery on the United States that the court finds a substantial likelihood would--
(i) create a serious threatof death or serious bodily injury to any person;
(ii) adversely affect the abilityof the United States to work in cooperation with foreign and international law enforcement
agencies in investigating violations of United States law; or
(iiiobstruct the criminal case related to the incident that gave rise to the cause of action or undermine the potential for
a conviction in such case.
(3) Evaluation of evidence.-- The court's evaluation of any request for a stay under this subsection filed by the Attorney
General shall be conducted ex parte and in camera.
(4) Bar on motions to dismiss.--A stay of discovery under this subsection shall constitute a bar to the granting of a motion
to dismiss under rules 12(b)(6) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(5) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the United States from seeking protective orders or asserting
privileges ordinarily available to the United States.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2892; amended Pub.L. 100-640, § I, Nov. 9, 1988, 102 Stat. 3333;
Pub.L. 100-669, § 2,Nov. 16,1988, 102 Stat. 3969; Pub.L. 101-650, Title III,§ 325(b)(8), Dec. I, 1990,104 Stat. 5121; Pub.L.
104-132, Title II,§ 22l(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1241; Pub.L. 105-11, Apr. 25, 1997, Ill Stat. 22; Pub.L. 107-77, Title VI,
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3§ 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a..•, 28 USCA § 1605A
KeyCite Yellow Flag- Negative Treatment
Unconstitutional or PreemptedPrior Version Preemptedby Martinez v. Republic of Cuba,S.D.N.Y., Feb. 01, 2016
United States Code Annotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV.Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. § 16osA
§ 16osA. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state
Effective: January 28, 2008
Currentness
(a) In general.--
(1)No immunity.--A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States
in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal
injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision
of material support or resources for such an act if such act or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an
official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.
(2) Claim heard.-- The court shall hear a claim under this section if--
(A)(i)(l) the foreign state was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism at the time the act described in paragraph (I)
occurred, or was so designated as a result of such act, and, subject to subclause (II), either remains so designated when
the claim is filed under this section or was so designated within the 6-month period before the claim is filed under this
section; or
(II) in the case of an action that is refiled under this section by reason of section 1083(c)(2)(A) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 or is filed under this section by reason of section 1083(c)(3) ofthat Act, the foreign
state was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism when the original action or the related action under section 1605(a)(7)
(as in effect before the enactment of this section) or section 589 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(c) of division A of Public Law 104-208)was filed;
(ii)the claimant or the victim was, at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred--
(I) a national of the United States;
(II)a member of the armed forces; or
W!;:STLt\W © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a..., 28 USCA § 1605A
(III) otherwise an employee of the Government of the United States, or of an individual performing a contract awarded
by the United States Government, acting within the scope of the employee's employment; and
(iii) in a case in which the act occurred in the foreign state against which the claim has been brought, the claimant has
afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in accordance with the accepted international
rules of arbitration; or
(B) the act described in paragraph (1) is related to Case Number I:OOCV03ll0 (EGS) in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.
(b) Limitations.-- An action may be brought or maintained under this section if the action is commenced, or a related action was
commenced under section 1605(a)(7) (before the date of the enactment of this section) or section 589 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section IOI(c) of division A of Public Law
104-208) not later than the latter of--
(1) 10 years after April24, 1996; or
(2) I0 years after the date on which the cause of action arose.
(c) Private right of action.--A foreign state that is or was a state sponsor of terrorism as described in subsection (a)(2)(A)
(i), and any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment,
or agency, shall be liable to--
(1) a national of the United States,
(2) a member of the armed forces,
(3) an employee of the Government of the United States, or of an individual performing a contract awarded by the United
States Government, acting within the scope of the employee's employment, or
(4) the legal representative of a person described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3),
for personal injury or death caused by acts described in subsection (a) (I) of that foreign state, or of an official, employee, or
agent of that foreign state, for which the courts of the United States may maintain jurisdiction under this section for money
damages. In any such action, damages may include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. In
any such action, a foreign state shall be vicariously liable for the acts of its officials, employees, or agents.
(d) Additional damages.--After an action has been brought under subsection (c), actions may also be brought for reasonably
foreseeable property loss, whether insured or uninsured, third party liability, and loss claims under life and property insurance
policies, by reason of the same acts on which the action under subsection (c) is based.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2§ 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a..., 28 USCA § 1605A
(e) Special masters.--
(1) In general.--The courts ofthe United States may appoint special masters to hear damage claims brought under this section.
(2) Transfer of funds.-- The Attorney General shall transfer, from funds available for the program under section 1404C of
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c), to the Administrator of the United States district court in which any
case is pending which has been brought or maintained under this section such funds as may be required to cover the costs of
special masters appointed under paragraph (1). Any amount paid in compensation to any such special master shall constitute
an item of court costs.
(t) Appeai.--In an action brought under this section, appeals from orders not conclusively ending the litigation may only be
taken pursuant to section 1292(b) of this title.
(g) Property disposition.--
(1) In general.--In every action filed in a United States district court in which jurisdiction is alleged under this section, the
filing of a notice of pending action pursuant to this section, to which is attached a copy of the complaint filed in the action,
shall have the effect of establishing a lien of lis pendens upon any real property or tangible personal property that is--
(A) subject to attachment in aid of execution, or execution, under section 1610;
(B) located within that judicial district; and
(C) titled in the name of any defendant, or titled in the name of any entity controlled by any defendant if such notice
contains a statement listing such controlled entity.
(2) Notice.--A notice of pending action pursuant to this section shall be filed by the clerk of the district court in the same
manner as any pending action and shall be indexed by listing as defendants all named defendants and all entities listed as
controlled by any defendant.
(3) Enforceability.--Liens established by reason ofthis subsection shall be enforceable as provided in chapter 111of this title.
(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term "aircraft sabotage" has the meaning given that term inArticle 1ofthe Convention for the Suppression ofUnlawful
Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation;
(2) the term "hostage taking" has the meaning given that term in Article 1 of the International Convention Against the Taking
of Hostages;
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3§ 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a..., 28 USCA § 1605A
(3) the term "material support or resources" has the meaning given that term in section 2339A of title 18;
(4)the term "armed forces" has the meaning given that term in section 101 of title IO;
(5) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 110l(a)(22));
(6)the term "state sponsor of terrorism" means a country the government of which the Secretary of State has determined,
for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act ofl979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), section 620A of the Foreign
AssistanceActofl961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), section40 of theArms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), or any other provision
of law, is a government that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism; and
(7) the terms "torture" and "extrajudicial killing" have the meaning given those terms in section 3 of the Torture Victim
Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note).
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 110-181, Div. A, Title X,§ 1083(a)(l), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 338.)
Notes of Decisions (280)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1605A, 28 USCA § 1605A
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4§ 1606. Extent of liability, 28 USCA § 1606
United States CodeAnnotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV.Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. §1606
§ 1606. Extent ofliability
Effective: November 26, 2002
Currentness
As to any claim for relief with respect to which a foreign state is not entitled to immunity under section 1605 or 1607 of
this chapter, the foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like
circumstances; but a foreign state except for an agency or instrumentality thereof shall not be liable for punitive damages; if,
however, in any case wherein death was caused, the law of the place where the action or omission occurred provides, or has
been construed to provide, for damages only punitive in nature, the foreign state shall be liable for actual or compensatory
damages measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death which were incurred by the persons for whose benefit
the action was brought.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2894; amended Pub.L. 105-277, Div. A,§ 101(h) [Title I,§ 117(b)],
Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-491; Pub.L. 106-386, Div. C, § 2002(f)(2), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1543; Pub.L. 107-297, Title
II,§ 201(c)(3), Nov. 26, 2002, 116 Stat. 2337.)
Notes of Decisions (105)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1606, 28 USCA § 1606
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1607. Counterclaims, 28 USCA § 1607
United States Code Annotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV. Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. § 1607
§ 1607. Counterclaims
Effective: January 28, 2008
Currentness
In any action brought by a foreign state, or in which a foreign state intervenes, in a court of the United States or of a State, the
foreign state shall not be accorded immunity with respect to any counterclaim--
(a) for which a foreign state would not be entitled to immunity under section 1605 or 1605A of this chapter had such claim
been brought in a separate action against the foreign state; or
(b)arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the claim of the foreign state; or
(c) to the extent that the counterclaim does not seek relief exceeding in amount or differing in kind from that sought by the
foreign state.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976,90 Stat. 2894; amended Pub.L. 110-181, Div. A, Title X,§ 1083(b)(2), Jan.
28, 2008, 122 Stat. 341.)
Notes of Decisions (12)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1607, 28 USCA § 1607
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1608. Service; time to answer; default, 28 USCA § 1608
United States CodeAnnotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV.Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97·Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. § 1608
§ 1608. Service; time to answer; default
Currentness
(a) Service in the courts of the United States and of the States shall be made upon a foreign state or political subdivision of
a foreign state:
(1)by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with any special arrangement for service between the
plaintiff and the foreign state or political subdivision; or
(2)if no special arrangement exists, by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with an applicable
international convention on service of judicial documents; or
(3) if service cannot be made under paragraphs (1) or (2), by sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice
of suit, together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail requiring a
signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the
foreign state concerned, or
(4) if service cannot be made within 30 days under paragraph (3), by sending two copies of the summons and complaint
and a notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail
requiring a signed receipt, tobe addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of State in Washington,
District of Columbia, to the attention of the Director of Special Consular Services--and the Secretary shall transmit one copy
of the papers through diplomatic channels to the foreign state and shall send to the clerk of the court a certified copy of the
diplomatic note indicating when the papers were transmitted.
As used in this subsection, a "notice of suit" shall mean a notice addressed to a foreign state and in a form prescribed by the
Secretary of State by regulation.
(b) Service in the courts of the United States and of the States shall bemade upon an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state:
(1)by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with any special arrangement for service between
the plaintiff and the agency or instrumentality; or
(2)if no special arrangement exists, by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint either to an officer, a managing or
general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process in the United States;
or in accordance with an applicable international convention on service of judicial documents; or
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1608. Service; time to answer; default, 28 USCA § 1608
(3) if service cannot be made under paragraphs (1) or (2), and if reasonably calculated to give actual notice, by delivery of a
copy of the summons and complaint, together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state--
(A) as directed by an authority of the foreign state or political subdivision in response to a letter rogatory or request or
(B) by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the agency
or instrumentality to be served, or
(C) as directed by order of the court consistent with the law of the place where service is to be made.
(c) Service shall be deemed to have been made--
(1) in the case of service under subsection (a)(4), as of the date oftransmittal indicated in the certified copy of the diplomatic
note; and
(2) in any other case under this section, as of the date of receipt indicated in the certification, signed and returned postal
receipt, or other proof of service applicable to the method of service employed.
(d) In any action brought in a court of the United States or of a State, aforeign state, apolitical subdivision thereof, or an agency
or instrumentality of a foreign state shall serve an answer or other responsive pleading to the complaint within sixty days after
service has been made under this section.
(e) No judgment by default shall be entered by a court of the United States or of a State against a foreign state, a political
subdivision thereof, or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to
relief by evidence satisfactory to the court. A copy of any such default judgment shall be sent to the foreign state or political
subdivision in the manner prescribed for service in this section.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2894.)
Notes of Decisions (252)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1608, 28 USCA § 1608
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Wf;STLAW © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2§ 1609. Immunity from attachment and execution of property of a..., 28 USCA § 1609
United States CodeAnnotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV.Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annos)
Chapter 97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A § 1609
§1609. Immunity from attachment and execution of property of a foreign state
Currentness
Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is aparty at the time of enactment of this Act the property
in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment arrest and execution except as provided in sections
1610 and 1611 of this chapter.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976,90 Stat. 2895.)
Notes of Decisions (14)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1609, 28 USCA § 1609
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1610. Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution, 28 USCA § 1610
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
Proposed Legislation
United States Code Annotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annos)
Part IV. Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 97· Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.CA. § 1610
§ 1610. Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution
Effective: August 10, 2012
Currentness
(a) The property in the United States of a foreign state, as defined in section 1603(a) of this chapter, used for a commercial
activity in the United States, shall not be immune from attachment in aid of execution, or from execution, upon a judgment
entered by a court of the United States or of a State after the effective date of this Act, if--
(1) the foreign state has waived its immunity from attachment in aid of execution or from execution either explicitly or by
implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with
the terms of the waiver, or
(2) the property is or was used for the commercial activity upon which the claim is based, or
(3) the execution relates to a judgment establishing rights in property which has been taken in violation of international law
or which has been exchanged for property taken in violation of international law, or
(4) the execution relates to a judgment establishing rights in property--
(A) which is acquired by succession or gift, or
(B) which is immovable and situated in the United States: Provided, That such property is not used for purposes of
maintaining a diplomatic or consular mission or the residence of the Chief of such mission, or
(5) the property consists of any contractual obligation or any proceeds from such a contractual obligation to indemnify or
hold harmless the foreign state or its employees under a policy of automobile or other liability or casualty insurance covering
the claim which merged into the judgment, or
(6) thejudgment isbased on an order confirming an arbitral award rendered against the foreign state, provided that attachment
in aid of execution, or execution, would not be inconsistent with any provision in the arbitral agreement, or
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. § 1610. Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution, 28 USCA § 1610
(7) thejudgment relates to a claim for which the foreign state is not immune under section 1605A or section 1605(a)(7) (as
such section was in effect on January 27, 2008), regardless of whether the property is or was involved with the act upon
which the claim is based.
(b)In addition to subsection (a), any property in the United States of an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state engaged in
commercial activity in the United States shall not be immune from attachment in aid of execution, or from execution, upon a
judgment entered by a court of the United States or of a State after the effective date of this Act, if--
(1) the agency or instrumentality has waived its immunity from attachment in aid of execution or from execution either
explicitly or implicitly, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver the agency or instrumentality may purport to effect
except in accordance with the terms of the waiver, or
(2) the judgment relates to a claim for which the agency or instrumentality is not immune by virtue of section 1605(a) (2),
(3), or (5) or1605(b) of this chapter, regardless of whether the property is or was involved in the act upon which the claim
is based, or
(3) the judgment relates to a claim for which the agency or instrumentality is not immune by virtue of section 1605A of this
chapter or section 1605(a)(7) of this chapter (as such section was in effect on January 27, 2008), regardless of whether the
property is or was involved in the act upon which the claim is based.
(c)No attachment or execution referred to in subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be permitted until the court has ordered
such attachment and execution after having determined that a reasonable period of time has elapsed following the entry of
judgment and the giving of any notice required under section 1608(e) of this chapter.
(d) The property of a foreign,state, as defmed in section 1603(a) of this chapter, used for a commercial activity in the United
States, shall not be immune from attachment prior to the entry ofjudgment in any action brought in a court of the United States
or of a State, or prior to the elapse of the period of time provided in subsection (c) of this section, if--
(1) the foreign state has explicitly waived its immunity from attachment prior to judgment, notwithstanding any withdrawal
of the waiver the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver, and
(2) the purpose of the attachment is to secure satisfaction of a judgment that has been or may ultimately be entered against
the foreign state, and not to obtain jurisdiction.
(e) The vessels of a foreign state shall not be immune from arrest in rem, interlocutory sale, and execution in actions brought
to foreclose a preferred mortgage as provided in section 1605(d).
(t)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, including but not limited to section 208(f) of the Foreign Missions Act
(22U.S.C. 4308(f)), and except as provided in subparagraph (B), any property with respect to which financial transactions are
prohibited or regulated pursuant to section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)), section 620(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(a)), sections 202 and 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers
W!':Sn..AW © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2§ 1610. Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution, 28 USCA § 1610
Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1702), or any other proclamation, order, regulation, or license issued pursuant thereto, shall be subject
to execution or attachment in aid of execution of any judgment relating to a claim for which a foreign state (including any
agency or instrumentality or such state) claiming such property is not immune under section 1605(a)(7) (as in effect before the
enactment of section 1605A) or section 1605A.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if, at the time the property is expropriated or seized by the foreign state, the property has
been held in title by a natural person or, if held in trust, has been held for the benefit of a natural person or persons.
(2)(A) At the request of any party in whose favor a judgment has been issued with respect to a claim for which the foreign state
is not immune under section 1605(a)(7) (as in effect before the enactment of section 1605A) or section 1605A, the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Secretary of State should make every effort to fully, promptly, and effectively assist anyjudgment creditor
or any court that has issued any such judgment in identifying, locating, and executing against the property of that foreign state
or any agency or instrumentality of such state.
(B) In providing such assistance, the Secretaries--
(i) may provide such information to the court under seal; and
(ii) should make every effort to provide the information in a manner sufficient to allow the court to direct the United States
Marshall's office to promptly and effectively execute against that property.
(3) Waiver.-- The President may waive any provision of paragraph (1) in the interest of national security.
(g) Property in certain actions.--
(1) In generai.--Subject to paragraph (3), the property of a foreign state against which a judgment is entered under section
1605A, and the property of an agency or instrumentality of such a state, including property that is a separate juridical entity
or is an interest held directly or indirectly in a separate juridical entity, is subject to attachment in aid of execution, and
execution, upon that judgment as provided in this section, regardless of--
(A) the level of economic control over the property by the government of the foreign state;
(B) whether the profits of the property go to that government;
(C) the degree to which officials of that government manage the property or otherwise control its daily affairs;
(D) whether that government is the sole beneficiary in interest of the property; or
(E) whether establishing the property as a separate entity would entitle the foreign state to benefits in United States courts
while avoiding its obligations.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3§ 1610. Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution, 28 USCA § 1610
(2) United States sovereign immunity inapplicable.--Any property of a foreign state, or agency or instrumentality of a
foreign state, to which paragraph (1) applies shall not be immune from attachment in aid of execution, or execution, upon a
judgment entered under section 1605Abecause the property is regulated by the United States Government by reason of action
taken against that foreign state under the Trading With the Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
(3) Third-party joint property holders.--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to supersede the authority of a court
to prevent appropriately the impairment of an interest held by a person who is not liable in the action giving rise to ajudgment
in property subject to attachment in aid of execution, or execution, upon such judgment.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2896; amended Pub.L. 100-640, § 2, Nov. 9, 1988, 102 Stat. 3333;
Pub.L. 100-669, § 3, Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3969; Pub.L. 101-650, Title III, § 325(b)(9), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5121; Pub.L.
104-132, Title II,§ 221(b), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1243; Pub.L. 105-277, Div. A,§ 101(h) [Title I,§ 117(a)], Oct. 21, 1998,
112 Stat. 2681-491; Pub.L. 106-386, Div. C, § 2002(g)(1), Oct. 28,2000, 114 Stat. 1543; Pub.L. 107-297, Title II,§ 201(c)(3),
Nov. 26, 2002, 116 Stat. 2337; Pub.L. 110-181, Div. A, Title X, § 1083(b)(3), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 341; Pub.L. 112-158,
Title V, § 502(e)(1), Aug. 10,2012, 126 Stat. 1260.)
Notes of Decisions (180)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1610, 28 USCA § 1610
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4§ 1611. Certain types of property immune from execution, 28 USCA § 1611
• KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment
Unconstitutional or PreempteRecognized as Repealed by Implication Weininger v. Castro,S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2006
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative TreatmeProposed Legislation
United States Code Annotated
Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs &Annas)
Part IV. Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs &Annas)
Chapter 97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States
28 U.S.C.A. § 1611
§ 1611.Certain types of property immune from execution
Effective: August 1,1996
Currentness
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1610 of this chapter, the property of those organizations designated by the
President as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided by the International Organizations
Immunities Act shall not be subject to attachment or any other judicial process impeding the disbursement of funds to, or on
the order of, a foreign state as the result of an action brought in the courts of the United States or of the States.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1610 of this chapter, the property of a foreign state shall be immune from
attachment and from execution, if--
(1)the property is that of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for itsown account, unless such bank or authority,
or its parent foreign government, has explicitly waived its immunity from attachment in aid of execution, or from execution,
notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver which the bank, authority or government may purport to effect except in
accordance with the terms of the waiver; or
(2)the property is, or is intended to be, used in connection with a military activity and
(A) is of a military character, or
(B) is under the control of a military authority or defense agency.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1610 of this chapter, the property of a foreign state shall be immune from
attachment and from execution in an action brought under section 302 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
(LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 to the extent that the property is a facility or installation used by an accredited diplomatic mission
for official purposes.
CREDIT(S)
(Added Pub.L. 94-583, § 4(a), Oct. 21, 1976,90 Stat. 2897; amended Pub.L. 104-114, Title III,§ 302(e), Mar. 12, 1996,
110 Stat. 818.)
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.§ 1611. Certain types of property immune from execution, 28 USCA § 1611
Notes ofDecisions (16)
28 U.S.C.A. § 1611, 28 USCA § 1611
Current through P.L. 114-143. Also includes P.L. 114-145, 114-146, 114-148, and 114-151 to 114-154.
End of Document i!d20!6 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION
INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
filed in the Registry of the Court
on 14 June 2016
CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS
(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA)
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
REQUÊTE
INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE
enregistrée au Greffe de la Cour
le 14 juin 2016
CERTAINS ACTIFS IRANIENS
(RÉPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D’IRAN c. ÉTATS-UNIS
D’AMÉRIQUE)
I. LETTER FROM THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN TO THE REGISTRAR
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Agent Bureau
The Hague
in the name of god
14 June 2016.
On behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and in accordance with Articles 36 (1)
and 40 (1) of the Statute of the Court, and Article 38 of the Rules of Court, I have
the honour to notify the Court that the Islamic Republic of Iran is hereby presenting
an Application concerning the violations by the Government of the United
States of America of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular
Rights between Iran and United States of America which was signed in Tehran on
15 August 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957.
As indicated in the Application, in accordance with Article 40 of the Rules of
Court, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran informs the Court that it
has appointed the undersigned as its Agent for this proceeding and that the address
for service to the Agent is the Agent Bureau of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic
of Iran, De Werf 15, 4th floor, 2544 EH, The Hague.
(Signed) M. H. Zahedin Labbaf,
I hereby certify the authenticity of the above signature,
(Signed) A. Jahangiri,
Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran
to the Netherlands.
2
2016
General List
No. 164
I. LETTRE DE L’AGENT DU GOUVERNEMENT
DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D’IRAN AU GREFFIER
DE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
[Traduction]
Ambassade de la République islamique d’Iran
Bureau de l’agent
La Haye
au nom de dieu
Le 14 juin 2016.
Au nom de la République islamique d’Iran, et conformément au paragraphe 1
de l’article 36 et au paragraphe 1 de l’article 40 du Statut de la Cour, ainsi qu’à
l’article 38 de son Règlement, j’ai l’honneur d’informer la Cour que la République
islamique d’Iran dépose par la présente une requête introductive d’instance concernant
des violations, par le Gouvernement des Etats‑Unis d’Amérique, du traité
d’amitié, de commerce et de droits consulaires entre l’Iran et les Etats‑Unis d’Amérique,
signé à Téhéran le 15 août 1955 et entré en vigueur le 16 juin 1957.
Comme l’indique la requête, et conformément à l’article 40 du Règlement,
le Gouvernement de la République islamique d’Iran informe la Cour qu’il a désigné
le soussigné en qualité d’agent aux fins de cette instance et que la correspondance
doit lui être adressée à son bureau, sis à De Werf 15, 4e étage, 2544 EH,
La Haye.
(Signé) M. H. Zahedin Labbaf.
Pour légalisation de la signature ci‑dessus,
L’ambassadeur de la République islamique d’Iran
auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
(Signé) A. Jahangiri.
3
2016
Rôle général
no 164
4
II. APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
in the name of god
I, the undersigned, duly authorized by the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran (“Iran”) of which I am the Agent, have the honour to submit to the International
Court of Justice, in accordance with Articles 36 (1) and 40 (1) of its Statute
and Article 38 of its Rules, an Application instituting proceedings brought by
Iran against the United States of America (the “USA”) in the following case.
I. Subject of the Dispute
1. The dispute between Iran and the USA concerns the adoption by the USA of
a series of measures that, in violation of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations,
and Consular Rights signed at Tehran on 15 August 1955 (the “Treaty of Amity”),
which entered into force between Iran and the USA on 16 June 1957 1, have had,
and/or are having a serious adverse impact upon the ability of Iran and of Iranian
companies (including Iranian State‑owned companies) to exercise their rights to
control and enjoy their property, including property located outside the territory
of Iran/within the territory of the USA.
II. The Jurisdiction of the Court
2. The Court has jurisdiction in relation to the above dispute, and to rule on the
claims submitted by Iran, pursuant to Article 36 (1) of the Statute of the Court and
Article XXI (2) of the Treaty of Amity.
3. Article 36 (1) of the Statute of the Court provides in the relevant part that the
Court’s jurisdiction: “comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters
specifically provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and
conventions in force”.
4. Article XXI (2) of the Treaty of Amity provides:
“Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties as to the interpretation
or application of the present Treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy,
shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, unless the High Contracting
Parties agree to settlement by some other pacific means.”
5. The dispute has not been satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, and there has
been no agreement to settle the dispute by some pacific means other than the
Treaty of Amity.
1 284 United Nations, Treaty Series (UNTS) 93; II Recueil des traités bilatéraux 69;
8 UST 899; TIAS No. 3853. The text of the Treaty of Amity is appended to this Application
as Annex 1.
5
II. REQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE
[Traduction]
au nom de dieu
Le soussigné, dûment autorisé par le Gouvernement de la République islamique
d’Iran (ci‑après, l’« Iran ») dont il est l’agent, a l’honneur de soumettre à la Cour
internationale de Justice, conformément au paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 et au paragraphe
1 de l’article 40 de son Statut, ainsi qu’à l’article 38 de son Règlement, une
requête introductive d’instance contre les Etats-Unis d’Amérique (ci-
après, les
« Etats-Unis ») relativement à l’affaire exposée ci-
après.
I. Objet du différend
1. Le différend entre l’Iran et les Etats-Unis concerne l’adoption par ces derniers
d’un ensemble de mesures qui, en violation du traité d’amitié, de commerce et de
droits consulaires signé à Téhéran le 15 août 1955 (ci‑après, le « traité d’amitié »),
lequel est entré en vigueur entre l’Iran et les Etats‑Unis le 16 juin 1957 1, ont eu ou ont
de graves conséquences sur la capacité de l’Iran et de sociétés iraniennes (dont certaines
appartiennent à l’Etat) à exercer leur droit de disposer et de jouir de leurs
biens, y compris ceux situés en dehors du territoire iranien et sur le territoire des
Etats-Unis.
II. Compétence de la Cour
2. La Cour a, en vertu du paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 de son Statut et du paragraphe
2 de l’article XXI du traité d’amitié, compétence pour connaître du différend
mentionné ci-
dessus
et statuer sur les demandes présentées par l’Iran.
3. Le paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 du Statut de la Cour dispose que la compétence
de celle-
ci « s’étend à toutes les affaires que les parties lui soumettront, ainsi
qu’à tous les cas spécialement prévus dans la Charte des Nations Unies ou dans les
traités et conventions en vigueur ».
4. Le paragraphe 2 de l’article XXI du traité d’amitié est ainsi libellé :
« Tout différend qui pourrait s’élever entre les Hautes Parties contractantes
quant à l’interprétation ou à l’application du présent Traité et qui ne pourrait
pas être réglé d’une manière satisfaisante par la voie diplomatique sera porté
devant la Cour internationale de Justice, à moins que les Hautes Parties
contractantes ne conviennent de le régler par d’autres moyens pacifiques. »
5. Le différend n’a pas pu être réglé d’une manière satisfaisante par la voie
diplomatique et l’Iran et les Etats-Unis n’ont pas convenu de le régler par d’autres
moyens pacifiques.
1 Nations Unies, Recueil des traités (RTNU), vol. 284, p. 93 ; II Recueil des traités bilatéraux
69, 8 UST 899 ; TIAS no 3853. Le texte du traité d’amitié est reproduit à l’annexe 1 de
la présente requête.
6
III. The Facts
6. The USA has adopted, and is implementing, a broad series of measures
against Iran and Iranian companies, including Iranian State‑owned companies such
as the Central Bank of Iran (also known as “Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran”
or “Bank Markazi”), and their property, which are in violation of the USA’s obligations
under the Treaty of Amity. The USA’s violations of the Treaty of Amity
include its (a) failure to recognize the separate juridical status of such entities
including Iranian State‑owned companies, (b) unfair and discriminatory treatment
of such entities and their property, which impairs the legally acquired rights and
interests of such entities including enforcement of their contractual rights, (c) failure
to accord to such entities and their property the most constant protection and
security that is in no case less than that required by international law, (d) expropriation
of the property of such entities, (e) failure to accord to such entities freedom
of access to the US courts, including the abrogation of the immunities to which
Iran and Iranian State‑owned companies, including Bank Markazi, and their property,
are entitled under customary international law and as required by the Treaty
of Amity, both with respect to jurisdictional immunities and immunities from
enforcement, (f) failure to respect the right of such entities to acquire and dispose
of property, (g) application of restrictions to such entities on the making of payments
and other transfers of funds to or from the USA, and (h) interference with
the freedom of commerce between the territories of Iran and the USA.
7. The USA has for many years adopted the position that Iran may be designated
a State sponsoring terrorism (a designation which Iran strongly contests) 2.
Consequent upon the enactment of the legislative and executive acts referred to
below, a wide series of claims and enforcement proceedings have been determined
or are underway against Iran and Iranian entities in the USA. As at the date of this
Application, US courts had awarded total damages of over US$56 billion (consisting
in approximately US$26 billion in compensatory damages and US$30 billion
in punitive damages) against Iran in respect of its alleged involvement in various
terrorist acts mainly outside the USA 3. On 9 March 2016, the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York ordered Iran to pay more than US$10.5 billion
to families of people killed in the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to
a group of insurers 4.
8. On 3 July 2012, the US District Court of Columbia stated that it had issued
over US$8.8 billion in judgments against Iran regarding alleged involvement in the
deaths of US Marines killed in the bombing of their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon,
in 1983 alone 5. In one such set of claims primarily concerning the 1983 Beirut
bombing, Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., the US District
Court for the District of Columbia has ordered Iran in a default judgment to
2 The USA purported to designate Iran as a State sponsoring terrorism on 19 January
1984 (see Section 6 (j) of the Export Administration Act, Section 40 of the Arms Export
Control Act, and Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act).
3 A list of damages claims and enforcement proceedings determined, or in the course of
being determined, by the US courts is appended to this Application as Annex 2. For an
earlier list prepared by the USA see “Terrorism Judgments against Iran: US Court Cases
under the Terrorism Exception to the FSIA (as of 11 August 2015)”, publicly available at
http://www.kirk.senate.gov/pdfs/AmericanIranianJudgments.pdf (accessed on 16 May
2016).
4 Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, US District Court for the Southern District of
New York, memorandum opinion and order dated 9 March 2016, 3 MLD 1570 (GBD) (FM).
5 Brown v. Iran, 08‑cv‑531 (RCL) US District Court for District of Columbia, 3 July
2012, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
7
III. Exposé des faits
6. Les Etats-Unis ont adopté et s’emploient à mettre en oeuvre un vaste ensemble
de mesures dirigées contre l’Iran et des sociétés iraniennes, dont certaines appartiennent
à l’Etat, telle la Banque centrale iranienne (également appelée « banque
Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran » ou « banque Markazi »), ainsi que leurs biens, manquant
ainsi aux obligations qui sont les leurs au titre du traité d’amitié. Emportent
ainsi violation de celui-ci, de la part des Etats-Unis : a) la non-reconnaissance
du
statut juridique distinct de ces entités iraniennes, dont certaines appartiennent à
l’Etat ; b) le traitement injuste et discriminatoire de ces entités et de leurs biens, lequel
porte atteinte aux droits et intérêts légalement acquis par elles, notamment quant à
l’exécution de leurs droits contractuels ; c) le fait de ne pas assurer à ces entités et à
leurs biens, de la manière la plus constante, une protection et une sécurité qui ne
sauraient en aucun cas être inférieures aux normes fixées par le droit international ;
d) l’expropriation des biens de ces entités ; e) le fait de ne pas accorder à ces entités
libre accès aux tribunaux des Etats-Unis, notamment en les privant de l’immunité de
juridiction et d’exécution que le droit international coutumier et les dispositions du
traité d’amitié confèrent à l’Iran et aux sociétés lui appartenant, dont la banque Markazi,
ainsi qu’à leurs biens ; f) le non-respect
du droit de ces entités d’acquérir et
d’aliéner des biens ; g) l’imposition à ces entités de restrictions en matière de paiements
et autres transferts de fonds à destination ou en provenance des Etats-Unis ; et
h) l’entrave à la liberté de commerce entre les territoires de l’Iran et des Etats-Unis.
7. Les Etats-Unis considèrent de longue date que l’Iran peut être qualifié d’Etat
soutenant le terrorisme (qualification que l’Iran conteste énergiquement) 2. En application
de divers textes émanant des pouvoirs exécutif et législatif et détaillés plus loin,
nombre de demandes et de procédures d’exécution visant l’Iran ou des entités iraniennes
aux Etats-Unis ont été ou sont en voie d’être accueillies. A la date de la présente
requête, les tribunaux américains avaient condamné l’Iran, à raison de sa prétendue
participation à différents actes terroristes principalement commis en dehors
des Etats-Unis, à verser des dommages-intérêts
d’un montant total de 56 milliards de
dollars des Etats-Unis (26 milliards à titre compensatoire et 30 à titre punitif) 3. Le
9 mars 2016, le tribunal fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York a ordonné à
l’Iran de verser plus de 10,5 milliards de dollars des Etats-Unis aux familles des victimes
des attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ainsi qu’à un groupe d’assureurs 4.
8. Le 3 juillet 2012, le tribunal fédéral du district de Columbia a déclaré avoir,
par ses jugements, condamné l’Iran à plus de 8,8 milliards de dollars des Etats-
Unis de dommages-intérêts
pour la seule année 1983 au titre de la responsabilité
qu’il lui attribuait dans le décès de soldats américains tués lors du bombardement
de leurs casernements à Beyrouth (Liban) 5. Dans l’une de ces affaires concernant
principalement le bombardement de 1983 à Beyrouth, Deborah D. Peterson et al.
2 L’intention des Etats-Unis de qualifier l’Iran d’Etat soutenant le terrorisme s’est manifestée
dès le 19 janvier 1984 : voir le paragraphe j) de l’article 6 de l’Export Administration
Act (ci-
après, la « loi sur la gestion des exportations »), l’article 40 de l’Arms Export Control
Act (« loi sur le contrôle des exportations d’armes ») et l’article 620A de la Foreign Assistance
Act (ci-
après, la « loi sur l’aide étrangère »).
3 On trouvera à l’annexe 2 la liste des actions en dommages-intérêts
et des procédures
d’exécution sur lesquelles les tribunaux américains ont statué ou sont en voie de le faire.
Pour une liste plus ancienne établie par les Etats-Unis, voir « Terrorism Judgments against
Iran : US Court Cases under the Terrorism Exception to the FSIA (as of 11 August 2015) »
(http://www.kirk.senate.gov/pdfs/AmericanIranianJudgments.pdf ; consulté le 16 mai 2016).
4 Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, tribunal fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de
New York, motifs et ordonnance en date du 9 mars 2016, 3 MLD 1570 (GBD) (FM).
5 Brown v. Iran, 08-cv-531 (RCL), tribunal fédéral du district de Columbia, 3 juillet 2012,
président Royce C. Lamberth.
8
pay in excess of US$2.6 billion. The US District Court for the Southern District of
New York has granted summary judgment to the Peterson claimants and ordered
the “turnover” of approximately US$1.75 billion in cash proceeds of security
entitlements
previously held in a custodial “omnibus account” 6 with Citibank N. A.
in New York by the Luxembourg‑based international central securities depository
Clearstream Banking S.A. to the ultimate benefit of Bank Markazi (the “Blocked
Assets”) 7. On 20 April 2016, the US Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the
relevant enactment specifically abrogating the immunity from enforcement which
would otherwise apply to such assets and interests of Bank Markazi. On
6 June 2016, the US District Court authorized the payment of the Blocked Assets
to the judgment creditors and closed the proceedings 8.
(i) US Legislative and Executive Acts against Iran
and Iranian Companies
9. In 1996, the USA enacted Section 1605 (a) (7) of the Foreign Sovereign
Immunity Act (the “FSIA”), pursuant to which immunity was removed in respect
of claims
“in which money damages are sought against a foreign State for personal
injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft
sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or
resources . . . for such an act . . .” 9.
10. In 2008, a new Section 1605A of FSIA was enacted to replace and extend
Section 1605 (a) (7) of FSIA 10. In particular:
(a) Section 1605A (a) (1) provides: “NO IMMUNITY — A foreign State 11 shall
not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States . . . in
any case . . . in which money damages are sought against a foreign State for
personal injury or death that was caused by the act of torture, extrajudicial
6 An account opened in the name of a financial institution through which the assets of
the financial institution’s underlying customers are commingled.
7 According to the US District Court’s order of 9 July 2013, as at 4 June 2013, the
Blocked Assets constituted US$1,895,600,513.03.
8 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., US
District Court for the Southern District of New York, order authorizing distribution of
funds dated 6 June 2016.
9 In 1996, the USA enacted the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act 1997, which extended the application of Section 1605 (a) (7)
of FSIA to “an official, employee or agent of a foreign State designated as a State sponsor
of terrorism designated under Section 6U) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 while
acting within the scope of his or her office employment, or agency”.
10 The text of legislative and executive acts referred to below, including Section 1605A, is
appended to this Application as Annex 3.
11 A “foreign State” is defined in Section 1603 (a) of FSIA as including “a political
subdivision of a foreign State or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign State as defined
in subsection (b)”. Section 1603 (b) of FSIA provides:
9
v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., le même tribunal fédéral de district a, dans un
jugement par défaut, condamné l’Iran à payer plus de 2,6 milliards de dollars des
Etats-Unis. A l’issue d’une procédure de référé, le tribunal fédéral du district sud
de l’Etat de New York a, en l’affaire Peterson, ordonné la remise d’environ
1,75 milliard de dollars des Etats-Unis provenant de la liquidation de droits sur
actifs financiers antérieurement détenus pour le compte de la banque Markazi par
Clearstream Banking S.A., dépositaire central international de titres ayant son
siège au Luxembourg, sur un « compte général » 6 de dépôt de titres à la
Citibank
N.A. à New York (les « actifs bloqués ») 7. Le 20 avril 2016, la Cour
suprême des Etats-Unis a jugé conforme à la Constitution le texte ayant pour effet
de lever l’immunité d’exécution dont auraient autrement bénéficié ces actifs et intérêts
de la banque Markazi. Le 6 juin 2016, le tribunal de district a autorisé la distribution
des actifs bloqués aux bénéficiaires du jugement et clos la procédure 8.
i) Actes législatifs et exécutifs des Etats-Unis visant l’Iran
et des sociétés iraniennes
9. En 1996, les Etats-Unis ont adopté l’alinéa 7 du paragraphe a) de l’article
1605 du Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (ci-
après, « loi sur l’immunité des
Etats étrangers »), levant ainsi l’immunité dans toute affaire
« dans laquelle une demande de dommages-intérêts
formée contre un Etat
étranger à raison d’un préjudice corporel ou d’un décès attribuable à des actes
de torture, à une exécution extrajudiciaire, au sabotage d’un aéronef ou à une
prise d’otages, ou de la fourniture d’un appui matériel ou financier … en vue
de la commission d’un tel acte… » 9.
10. En 2008, un nouvel article 1605A a été adopté pour remplacer l’alinéa 7 du
paragraphe a) de l’article 1605 de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers et en
étendre la portée 10 ; en voici les grandes lignes :
a) L’alinéa 1 du paragraphe a) de l’article 1605A prévoit ce qui suit : « ABSENCE
D’IMMUNITÉ — L’immunité de juridiction devant les tribunaux des Etats-
Unis ne s’applique pas dans le cas d’une demande de dommages-intérêts
formée
contre un Etat étranger 11 à raison d’un préjudice corporel ou d’un décès attri-
6 Compte ouvert au nom d’une institution financière sur lequel celle-
ci dépose en bloc les
actifs de ses clients.
7 Selon l’ordonnance rendue le 9 juillet 2013 par le tribunal de district, le montant des
actifs bloqués s’élevait, au 4 juin 2013, à 1 895 600 513,03 dollars des Etats-Unis.
8 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., tribunal
fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York, ordonnance du 6 juin 2016 autorisant la distribution
des fonds.
9 En 1996, les Etats-Unis ont adopté le Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act 1997 (« loi de 1997 portant affectation de crédits pour les
opérations à l’étranger, le financement à l’exportation et les programmes connexes »), qui
étend l’application de l’alinéa 7 du paragraphe a) de l’article 1605 de la loi sur l’immunité
des Etats étrangers à « tout fonctionnaire, employé ou agent d’un Etat étranger qualifié
d’Etat soutenant le terrorisme sous le régime du paragraphe j) de l’article 6 de la loi sur la
gestion des exportations de 1979 lorsqu’il agit dans l’exercice de ses fonctions ».
10 Le texte des mesures législatives et exécutives auxquelles il est fait référence ci-
dessous,
notamment l’article 1605A, est reproduit à l’annexe 3 de la présente requête.
11 Aux termes du paragraphe a) de l’article 1603 de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers,
« [l’]expression « Etat étranger » comprend les subdivisions politiques, établissements
ou organismes d’un Etat étranger au sens du paragraphe b) ». Le paragraphe b) du même
article 1603 est ainsi libellé :
10
killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support
or resources for such an act . . .”
(b) Pursuant to Section 1605A (a) (2), US courts will hear a claim under Section
1605A (a) (1) where — but only where — the foreign State has been designated
as a State sponsor of terrorism.
(c) Pursuant to Section 1605A (c), a private right of action is established, i.e., it is
established that a foreign State that is or was at the material time designated
by the USA as a State sponsor of terrorism is liable to US nationals (and certain
others) for personal injury or death caused by acts of torture. Punitive
damages may be awarded.
(d) Pursuant to Section 1605A (g), a lien of lis pendens is established over any real
or personal property within a given US District Court’s judicial district.
11. The provisions of Section 1605A apply with respect to past actions, and
without regard to defences such as res judicata, limitation of actions and collateral
estoppel 12.
12. As to enforcement against property of the foreign State and State‑owned
companies, with respect to Section 1605A, Section 1610 (b) (3) provides:
“In addition to subsection (a), any property in the United States of an
agency or instrumentality of a foreign State engaged in commercial activity in
the United States shall not be immune from attachment in aid of execution, or
from execution, upon a judgment entered by a court of the United States or of
a State after the effective date of this Act, if —
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
(3) the judgment relates to a claim for which the agency or instrumentality is
not immune by virtue of Section 1605A of this chapter or Section
1605 (a) (7) of this chapter (as such section was in effect on
January 27, 2008), regardless of whether the property is or was involved
in the act upon which the claim is based.” 13
13. Further, Section 1610 (g) (1) of FSIA provides:
“. . . the property of a foreign State against which a judgment is entered under
Section 1605A, and the property of an agency or instrumentality of such a State,
including property that is a separate juridical entity or is an interest held directly
“An ‘agency or instrumentality of a foreign State’ means any entity — (1) which is a
separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and (2) which is an organ of a foreign
State or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership
interest is owned by a foreign State or political subdivision thereof, and (3) which is
neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in Section 1332 (c) and (e)
of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.”
12 See Section 1083 (c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,
introducing the new Section 1605A of FSIA.
13 Section 1610 (b) (3) of FSIA was introduced by Section 502 (e) (l) of the Iran Threat
Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (referred to below).
11
buable à des actes de torture, à une exécution extrajudiciaire, au sabotage d’un
aéronef ou à une prise d’otages, ou de la fourniture d’un appui matériel ou
financier … en vue de la commission d’un tel acte… »
b) Aux termes de l’alinéa 2 du paragraphe a) de l’article 1605A, les tribunaux
américains ne connaissent de l’action visée à l’alinéa 1 du même paragraphe que
si l’Etat étranger concerné a été qualifié d’Etat soutenant le terrorisme.
c) Le paragraphe c) de l’article 1605A établit un droit d’action civile : l’Etat étranger
qui est ou était, à l’époque des faits, qualifié d’Etat soutenant le terrorisme
par les Etats-Unis est responsable envers les ressortissants des Etats-Unis (et
certains autres) à raison du préjudice corporel ou du décès attribuable à des
actes de torture. Des dommages-intérêts
punitifs peuvent être adjugés.
d) Le paragraphe g) de l’article 1605A établit une sûreté judiciaire sur les biens
meubles et immeubles éventuellement détenus par le défendeur dans le ressort
du tribunal fédéral de district saisi.
11. Les dispositions de l’article 1605A s’appliquent aux faits passés et sans que
puissent être invoqués des moyens de défense tels que l’autorité de la chose jugée,
que ce soit pour l’ensemble de l’affaire ou un point de fait ou de droit en particulier
(collateral estoppel), ou la prescription 12.
12. S’agissant des mesures d’exécution visant les biens de l’Etat étranger ou des
sociétés détenues par lui, pour l’application de l’article 1605A, l’alinéa 3 du paragraphe
b) de l’article 1610 prévoit notamment ce qui suit :
« En sus des dispositions du paragraphe a), l’immunité de saisie et d’exécution
est levée à l’égard de tout bien situé aux Etats-Unis et appartenant à un
établissement ou un organisme d’un Etat étranger exerçant une activité commerciale
aux Etats-Unis, dès lors qu’une juridiction des Etats-Unis ou d’un
Etat de l’Union a rendu jugement après la date d’entrée en vigueur de la présente
loi, dans les cas suivants :
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
3) le jugement a trait à une demande pour laquelle l’établissement ou l’organisme
est privé de l’immunité par application de l’article 1605A du présent
chapitre ou de l’alinéa 7 du paragraphe a) de l’article 1605 du présent chapitre
(dans sa version en vigueur au 27 janvier 2008), que le bien ait ou non
un lien avec les faits à l’origine de ladite demande. » 13
13. L’alinéa 1 du paragraphe g) de l’article 1610 de la loi sur l’immunité des
Etats étrangers dispose par ailleurs que :
« les biens de l’Etat étranger contre lequel un jugement est rendu en application
de l’article 1605A, ainsi que ceux des établissements et organismes de cet
Etat, y compris les biens constituant une entité juridique distincte ou une partici-
« L’expression « établissement ou organisme d’un Etat étranger » s’entend de toute
entité —1) dotée d’une personnalité juridique distincte, constituée ou non en personne
morale ; 2) qui est un organe d’un Etat étranger ou d’une subdivision politique de
celui-
ci, ou dont la majorité des actions ou autres titres de participation appartient à un
Etat étranger ou à une subdivision politique d’un Etat étranger ; et 3) qui n’est pas
ressortissante d’un Etat de l’Union au sens des paragraphes c) et e) de l’article 1332 du
pré sent titre et n’a pas été constituée sous le régime des lois d’un pays tiers. »
12 Voir le paragraphe c) de l’article 1083 du National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (ci-
après, « loi sur le budget de la défense nationale pour l’exercice 2008 »), introduisant
le nouvel article 1605A de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers.
13 L’alinéa 3 du paragraphe b) de l’article 1610 a été introduit par l’alinéa 1 du paragraphe
e) de l’article 502 de l’Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012
(ci-
après, la « loi de 2012 sur la réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme
en Syrie ») (citée ci-
dessous).
12
or indirectly in a separate juridical entity, is subject to attachment in aid of
execution, and execution, upon that judgment as provided in this section,
regardless of —
(A) the level of economic control over the property by the Government of the
foreign State;
(B) whether the profits of the property go to that Government;
(C) the degree to which officials of that Government manage the property or
otherwise control its daily affairs;
(D) whether that Government is the sole beneficiary in interest of the property;
or
(E) whether establishing the property as a separate entity would entitle the
foreign State to benefits in United States courts while avoiding its
obligations.” 14 (Emphasis added.)
14. It follows that the property of an agency or instrumentality of Iran may be
the subject of enforcement even though (i) the relevant judgment is against Iran
alone, and (ii) the property is owned by, or to the ultimate benefit of, a separate
juridical entity, and (iii) the Government of Iran has no economic or management
control over the separate juridical entity or its property. The US Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit recently held that:
“Congress did not limit the type of property subject to attachment and
execution under Section 1610 (g) to property connected to commercial activity
in the United States. The only requirement is that property be ‘the property
of the foreign State or its instrumentality’.” 15
15. Section 1611 (b) (1) of FSIA provides that, notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 1610, “the property of a foreign central bank or monetary authority
held for its own account” shall be immune from attachment and from execution.
However, in order to “lessen . . . enforcement difficulties” 16 the USA has deliberately
abrogated the protection which would otherwise be granted to the property
of Bank Markazi.
16. Through the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 (“TRIA”), the USA
authorized the enforcement of certain judgments obtained under Section
1605 (a) (7) of FSIA against the “Blocked Assets” 17 of the (alleged) “terrorist
party” 18 including the Blocked Assets of an agency or instrumentality of that
14 Section 1610 (l) (g) of FSIA was introduced by Section 1083 (b) (3) (D) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
15 Michael Bennett et al. v. Bank Melli, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, order
and opinion dated 22 February 2016, Circuit Judge Graber, p. 18.
16 Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., US Supreme
Court, judgment dated 20 April 2016, Judge Ginsburg, p. 3.
17 The term “Blocked Asset” is defined in Section 201 (d) (2) of TRIA as any asset seized
or frozen by the Executive Branch pursuant to either the Trading with the Enemy Act or the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
18 The term “terrorist party” is defined in Section 201 (d) (4) of TRIA as including “a
foreign State designated a State sponsor of terrorism under Section 6 (j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 . . . or Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961”.
13
pation détenue directement ou indirectement dans une telle entité, sont saisissables
en exécution de ce jugement, conformément au présent article, et ce,
indépendamment
A) du degré de contrôle économique exercé par le gouvernement de l’Etat
étranger sur les biens en question ;
B) de la question de savoir si les bénéfices tirés de ces biens reviennent ou non
à ce gouvernement ;
C) de la mesure dans laquelle les fonctionnaires de ce gouvernement interviennent
dans la gestion desdits biens ou les activités dont ils font l’objet ;
D) de la question de savoir si ce gouvernement est, à l’égard des biens, le seul
titulaire de l’intérêt bénéficiaire ;
E) de la question de savoir si la constitution des biens en entité distincte conférerait
quelque avantage à l’Etat étranger devant les tribunaux américains
tout en l’exonérant de ses obligations. » 14 (Les italiques sont de nous.)
14. Il s’ensuit que les biens d’un établissement ou d’un organisme de l’Etat iranien
peuvent faire l’objet d’une mesure d’exécution même si i) le jugement est rendu uniquement
contre l’Iran ; ii) les biens appartiennent à une entité juridique distincte ou
sont détenus pour le compte d’une telle entité ; et iii) le Gouvernement iranien n’exerce
aucune autorité économique ou administrative sur cette entité juridique distincte ou
sur ses biens. La cour d’appel fédérale du neuvième circuit a récemment conclu :
« Le Congrès n’a pas limité le type de biens susceptibles de faire l’objet
d’une saisie ou d’une mesure d’exécution au titre du paragraphe g) de l’article
1610 à ceux ayant un lien avec une activité commerciale aux Etats‑Unis.
La seule condition est que les biens doivent « appartenir » à l’Etat étranger ou
à un organisme de cet Etat. » 15
15. L’alinéa 1 du paragraphe b) de l’article 1611 de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats
étrangers dispose que, nonobstant les dispositions de l’article 1610, « les biens détenus
pour son propre compte par une banque centrale ou autre autorité monétaire
étrangère » bénéficient de l’immunité de saisie et d’exécution. Cependant, afin de
« limiter … les difficultés d’exécution » 16, les Etats‑Unis ont délibérément supprimé la
protection qui s’appliquerait autrement aux biens de la banque Markazi.
16. Les Etats‑Unis ont, par le Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002
(ci-
après, « loi de 2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme
»), autorisé l’exécution forcée de certains jugements obtenus en vertu de
l’alinéa 7 du paragraphe a) de l’article 1605 de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats
étrangers sur les « actifs bloqués » 17 de la (prétendue) « partie terroriste » 18, y
14 L’alinéa 1 du paragraphe g) de l’article 1610 de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers
a été introduit par le sous‑alinéa D) de l’alinéa 3 du paragraphe b) de l’article 1083 de
la loi sur le budget de la défense nationale pour l’exercice 2008.
15 Michael Bennett et al. v. Bank Melli, cour d’appel fédérale du neuvième circuit, motifs
et ordonnance en date du 22 février 2016, p. 18, juge Graber.
16 Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., Cour suprême
des Etats‑Unis, arrêt du 20 avril 2016, p. 3, juge Ginsburg.
17 Selon l’alinéa 2 du paragraphe d) de l’article 201 de la loi de 2002 sur l’assurance
contre les risques associés au terrorisme, l’expression « actifs bloqués » s’entend de tout actif
saisi par le pouvoir exécutif en vertu soit du Trading with the Enemy Act (ci-
après, « loi sur
le commerce avec l’ennemi »), soit de l’International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(ci-
après, « loi sur les pouvoirs économiques en cas d’urgence internationale »).
18 Aux termes de l’alinéa 4 du paragraphe d) de l’article 201 de la loi de 2002 sur l’assurance
contre les risques associés au terrorisme, l’expression « partie terroriste » s’entend de
tout « Etat étranger qualifié d’Etat soutenant le terrorisme sous le régime du paragraphe j)
de l’article 6 de la loi de 1979 sur la gestion des exportations … ou de l’article 620A de la loi
de 1961 sur l’aide étrangère ».
14
(alleged) “terrorist party”. Section 201 (a) of TRIA, as amended 19, currently provides:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in subsection
(b), in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against
a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a
terrorist party is not immune under Section 1605 A or 1605 (a) (7) [as such
Section was in effect on 27 January 2008] of title 28, United States Code, the
Blocked Assets of that terrorist party (including the Blocked Assets of any
agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution
or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent
of any compensatory damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged
liable.” 20 (Emphasis added.)
17. According to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
(“the US District Court”): “TRIA’s broad language — ‘notwithstanding any other
provision of law . . . in every case’ — provides one basis pursuant to which a separate
‘central bank’ analysis becomes unnecessary; TRIA trumps the central bank
provision in 28 USC 1611 (b) (2)” 21.
18. The USA’s attempts unlawfully to permit or assist the seizure and attachment
of the assets and interests of Iran and Iranian State‑owned companies,
including Bank Markazi, in the USA have intensified.
19. On 5 February 2012, pursuant (inter alia) to the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1701) and the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012 (the “NDAA”), the President of the USA made Executive
Order 13599 “Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial
Institutions” 22. The purported effect of Sections 1 (a) and (b) of Executive
Order 13599 is as follows:
“(a) All property and interests in property of the Government of Iran 23, including
the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter come
19 Section 201 (a) of TRIA was amended by Section 502 (e) (2) of the Iran Threat
Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 (referred to below).
20 Subsection 201 (b) establishes scope for a Presidential waiver. There is no relevant
waiver so far as concerns the current Application.
21 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al.,
US District Court for the Southern District of New York, opinion and order dated
28 February 2013, at p. 16.
22 Executive Order 13599 implements Section 1245 (c) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which provides:
“The President shall, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act (50 USC 1701 et seq.), block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests
in property of an Iranian financial institution if such property and interests in property
are in the United States, come within the United States, or are, or come within the
pos session or control of a United States person.”
23 Defined at Section 7 (d) of Executive Order 13599 as “the Government of Iran, any
political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Iran,
and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of
Iran”.
15
compris ceux de tout établissement ou organisme de celle-
ci. Le paragraphe a)
de l’article 201 de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers, dans sa version
modifiée 19, prévoit ce qui suit :
« Nonobstant toute autre disposition de la loi, mais sous réserve du paragraphe
b), dans tous les cas où il est fait droit à la demande formée contre une
partie terroriste et fondée sur un acte de terrorisme, ou pour laquelle la partie
terroriste est privée de l’immunité par application de l’article 1065A ou de
l’alinéa 7 du paragraphe a) de l’article 1605 (dans sa version en vigueur au
27 janvier 2008) du titre 28 du code des Etats-Unis, les actifs bloqués de cette
partie terroriste (y compris ceux de tout établissement ou organisme de
celle-
ci) sont saisissables en exécution dudit jugement à concurrence des
dommages-intérêts
compensatoires au paiement desquels ladite partie terroriste
aura été condamnée. » 20 (Les italiques sont de nous.)
17. Selon le tribunal fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York (le « tribunal
fédéral de district »), « étant donné la formulation très large de la loi de 2002 sur
l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme (« Nonobstant toute autre disposition
de la loi … dans tous les cas… »), notamment, il devient superflu de procéder
à une analyse distincte s’agissant d’une « banque centrale » : cette loi l’emporte
sur la disposition relative aux banques centrales qui figure à l’alinéa 2 du
paragraphe b) de l’article 1611 du titre 28 du code des Etats-Unis » 21.
18. Les efforts déployés par les Etats‑Unis pour illicitement permettre ou faciliter,
sur leur territoire, la saisie des actifs et intérêts de l’Iran et de sociétés appartenant
à celui‑ci, dont la banque Markazi, se sont intensifiés.
19. Le 5 février 2012, sur le fondement (entre autres) de la loi sur les pouvoirs
économiques en cas d’urgence internationale (article 1701 du titre 50 du code des
Etats-Unis) et du National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (ci-
après,
« loi sur le budget de la défense nationale pour l’exercice 2012 »), le président des
Etats-Unis a pris le décret 13599, intitulé « Blocking Property of the Government
of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions » 22, dont les paragraphes a) et b) de
l’article 1 sont ainsi libellés :
« a) Tous les biens et droits afférents de l’Etat iranien 23, y compris ceux de la
Banque centrale iranienne, se trouvant actuellement ou à l’avenir sur le ter-
19 Le paragraphe a) de l’article 201 de la loi de 2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques
associés au terrorisme a été modifié par l’alinéa 2 du paragraphe e) de l’article 502 de la loi
de 2012 sur la réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme en Syrie (citée
ci-
dessous).
20 Le paragraphe b) de l’article 201 confère au président des Etats-Unis le pouvoir
d’accorder
une dérogation à cet égard. Aucune dérogation susceptible d’intéresser l’espèce
n’a été accordée.
21 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., tribunal
fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York, motifs et ordonnance en date du 28 février 2013,
p. 16.
22 Le décret 13599 donne effet au paragraphe c) de l’article 1245 de la loi sur le budget de
la défense nationale pour l’exercice 2012, ainsi libellé :
« Conformément à la loi sur les pouvoirs économiques en cas d’urgence internationale
(articles 1701 et suivants du titre 50 du code des Etats-Unis), le président bloque et
interdit toute opération concernant les biens et droits afférents des institutions financières
iraniennes dès lors qu’ils se trouvent ou viennent à se trouver sur le territoire des
Eta ts-Unis ou en la possession ou à la disposition d’un ressortissant des Etats-Unis. »
23 Selon le paragraphe d) de l’article 7 du décret 13599, l’expression « Etat iranien »
désigne « l’Etat iranien, les subdivisions politiques, établissements et organismes de celui-
ci,
y compris la Banque centrale iranienne, ainsi que toute personne morale détenue ou
contrôlée par lui ou agissant pour son compte ».
16
within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession
or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch,
are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or
otherwise dealt in.
(b) All property and interests in property of any Iranian financial institution,
including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter
come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the
possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign
branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn,
or otherwise dealt in.” (Emphasis added.)
20. The effect of Executive Order 13599 appears to be that the pre‑condition
specified in Section 201 of TRIA (that there be relevant Blocked Assets of the
alleged terrorist party, including the Blocked Assets of any agency or instrumentality
of that terrorist party) is to be considered met with respect to all property and
interests in property of Iran and also any Iranian financial institution, including
Bank Markazi, that are in the United States. According to the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York:
“E.O. 13599 had the effect of turning any restrained assets owned by the
Iranian Government (or any agency or instrumentality thereof) into ‘Blocked
Assets’. As Bank Markazi is the Central Bank of Iran, any of its assets located
in the United States as of 5 February 2012, became ‘Blocked Assets’ pursuant
to E.O. 13599.” 24
21. On 1 August 2012, the US Congress passed the “Iran Threat Reduction and
Syria Human Rights Act 2012” (the “2012 Act”). President Obama signed the
2012 Act into law on 10 August 2012. Pursuant to Section 502 of the 2012 Act (also
known as 22 USC Section 8772), a definition of “Interests in Blocked Assets” of
extraordinary breadth has been enacted, and with specific reference to the ongoing
enforcement proceedings in Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
et al. (referred to above):
“(a) INTERESTS IN BLOCKED ASSETS. —
(1) IN GENERAL. Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding any other
provision of law, including any provision of law relating to sovereign
immunity, and pre-empting
any inconsistent provision of State law, a
financial asset that is:
(A) held in the United States for a foreign securities intermediary
doing business in the United States;
(B) a blocked asset 25 (whether or not subsequently unblocked) that is
property described in subsection (b); and
(C) equal in value to a financial asset of Iran 26, including an asset of
the Central Bank or monetary authority of the Government of
24 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., US
District Court for the Southern District of New York, opinion and order dated 28 February
2013, at p. 12.
25 Defined as any asset seized or frozen by the United States under Section 5 (b) of the
Trading with the Enemy Act (50 USC App. 5 (b)) or under Section 202 or 203 of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1701 and 1702) (s502 (d) (l)).
26 The term “Iran” is defined as the Government of Iran, including the Central Bank or
monetary authority of that Government and any agency or instrumentality of that Government
(s502 (d) (3)).
17
ritoire des Etats-Unis ou en la possession ou à la disposition d’un ressortissant
des Etats-Unis, y compris toute filiale à l’étranger, sont bloqués et ne
peuvent faire l’objet d’aucun transfert, paiement, exportation, retrait ou
autre opération.
b) Tous les biens et droits afférents des institutions financières iraniennes, y compris
ceux de la Banque centrale iranienne, se trouvant actuellement ou à
l’avenir sur le territoire des Etats-Unis ou en la possession ou à la disposition
d’un ressortissant des Etats-Unis, y compris toute filiale à l’étranger,
sont bloqués et ne peuvent faire l’objet d’aucun transfert, paiement, exportation,
retrait ou autre opération. » (Les italiques sont de nous.)
20. Le décret 13599 paraît faire en sorte que la condition préalable posée à l’article
201 de la loi de 2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme
(l’existence d’actifs bloqués de la prétendue partie terroriste, y compris tout établissement
ou organisme de celle‑ci) est considérée comme remplie en ce qui
concerne tous les biens et droits afférents de l’Iran et de toute institution financière
iranienne, dont la banque Markazi, qui se trouvent aux Etats-Unis. Le tribunal
fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York s’est exprimé ainsi :
« Le décret 13599 a eu pour effet de transformer en « actifs bloqués » tous les
actifs de l’Etat iranien (y compris de tout établissement ou organisme de
celui-
ci) mis sous main de justice. La banque Markazi étant la Banque centrale
de l’Iran, tous les actifs détenus par elle aux Etats-Unis sont devenus, à compter
du 5 février 2012, des « actifs bloqués » au sens du décret 13599. » 24
21. Le 1er août 2012, le Congrès des Etats-Unis a adopté la loi de 2012 sur la
réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme en Syrie, qui a été
promulguée par le président Obama le 10 août 2012. A l’article 502 de cette loi
(devenu l’article 8772 du titre 22 du code des Etats-Unis), une définition extrêmement
large de la notion d’« intérêt dans des actifs bloqués » et faisant expressément
référence à la procédure d’exécution en cours dans l’affaire Deborah D. Peterson et
al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al. (mentionnée ci-
dessus)
a été insérée :
« a) INTÉRÊT DANS DES ACTIFS BLOQUÉS
1) RÈGLE GÉNÉRALE. Sous réserve du paragraphe 2, nonobstant toute
autre disposition de la loi, notamment en ce qui a trait à l’immunité des Etats
étrangers, et par dérogation à toute disposition incompatible de la législation
des différents Etats de l’Union, tout actif financier qui, à la fois,
A. est détenu aux Etats-Unis pour un intermédiaire en valeurs mobilières
étranger exerçant une activité aux Etats-Unis ;
B. est un actif bloqué 25 (qu’il soit ou non débloqué par la suite) visé au
paragraphe b) ;
C. est égal en valeur à un actif financier de l’Iran 26, y compris un actif
de la Banque centrale, d’une autre autorité monétaire de l’Etat ira-
24 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., tribunal
fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York, motifs et ordonnance en date du 28 février 2013,
p. 12.
25 Tout actif saisi ou bloqué par les Etats-Unis en vertu du paragraphe b) de l’article 5 de
la loi sur le commerce avec l’ennemi (paragraphe b) de l’article 5 de l’annexe du titre 50 du
code des Etats-Unis) ou des articles 202 ou 203 de la loi sur les pouvoirs économiques en cas
d’urgence internationale (articles 1701 et 1702 du titre 50 du code des Etats-Unis) (alinéa 1
du paragraphe d) de l’article 502).
26 Le terme « Iran » s’entend de l’Etat iranien, y compris la Banque centrale ou autre
autorité monétaire et tout établissement ou organisme de celui-
ci (alinéa 3 du paragraphe d)
de l’article 502).
18
Iran or any agency or instrumentality of that Government, that
such foreign securities intermediary or a related intermediary
holds abroad,
shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy
any judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages awarded against
Iran for damages for personal injury or death caused by an act of torture,
extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage‑taking, or the provision of
material support or resources for such an act
. �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
(b) FINANCIAL ASSETS DESCRIBED — The financial assets described in
this Section are the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case
No. 10 Civ. 4518 (BSJ) (GWG), that were restrained by restraining notices
and levies secured by the plaintiffs in those proceedings, as modified by
court order dated 27 June 2008, and extended by court orders dated
23 June 2009, 10 May 2010, and 11 June 2010, so long as such assets
remain restrained by court order.” (Emphasis added.)
22. As the US Supreme Court has stated, in its Judgment of 20 April 2016
upholding the constitutionality of Section 502 of the 2012 Act, the purpose and
effect of that provision was “[t]o place beyond dispute the availability of some of
the Executive Order No. 13599, Blocked Assets for satisfaction of judgments rendered
in terrorism cases” 27. In a passage approved by the US Supreme Court, the
District Court recognized:
“On its face, the Statute sweeps away the FSIA provision setting forth
a central bank immunity, 28 USC Section 1611 (b) (l); it also eliminates any
other federal or state law impediments that might otherwise exist, so long
as the appropriate judicial determination is made . . . the 2012 Act therefore
provides a separate basis — in addition to the FSIA and TRIA — for
execution.” 28
23. In their joint dissenting opinion in the US Supreme Court’s judgment in the
Peterson case (as referred to above), President Roberts and Judge Sotomayor
explained the effect of Section 502 as follows:
“Section 8772 does precisely that, changing the law — for these proceedings
alone — simply to guarantee that respondents win. The law serves no other
purpose — a point, indeed, that is hardly in dispute. As the majority acknowledges,
the statute ‘sweeps away . . . any . . . federal or state law impediments
that might otherwise exist’ to bar respondents from obtaining Bank Markazi’s
assets . . . In the District Court, Bank Markazi had invoked sovereign
immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 USC Sec-
27 Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., US Supreme
Court, judgment dated 20 April 2016, Judge Ginsburg, at p. 5.
28 Deborah Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., US District
Court for the Southern District of New York, opinion and order dated 28 February 2013, at
p. 21; cited in Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., US
Supreme Court, judgment dated 20 April 2016, Judge Ginsburg, at p. 10.
19
nien ou d’un établissement ou organisme de celui-
ci, que ledit intermédiaire
en valeurs mobilières étranger ou un intermédiaire affilié
détient à l’étranger,
est saisissable en exécution de toute décision de justice à concurrence des
dommages-intérêts
compensatoires adjugés contre l’Iran à raison de tout préjudice
corporel ou décès attribuable à des actes de torture, à une exécution
extrajudiciaire, au sabotage d’un aéronef ou à une prise d’otages, ou de la
fourniture d’un appui matériel ou de ressources en vue de la commission d’un
tel acte
. �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
b) ACTIFS FINANCIERS VISÉS. Sont visés par le présent article les actifs
financiers en cause dans l’affaire Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
et al. (affaire no 10, civ. 4518 (BSJ) (GWG)), portée devant le tribunal fédéral
du district sud de l’Etat de New York, et mis sous main de justice
à l’initiative
des demandeurs en l’espèce, compte tenu des modifications
apportées par l’ordonnance du 27 juin 2008 et des prorogations opérées par
les ordonnances en date des 23 juin 2009, 10 mai 2010 et 11 juin 2010,
tant qu’ils demeurent sous l’autorité de la justice. » (Les italiques sont de
nous.)
22. Ainsi que l’a dit la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis dans son arrêt du
20 avril 2016, par lequel elle a jugé conforme à la Constitution l’article 502 de la loi
de 2012 sur la réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme en Syrie,
le but et l’effet de cette disposition étaient « de prévenir toute contestation relative à
la saisissabilité de certains des actifs bloqués par le décret 13599 pour l’exécution des
jugements rendus en matière de terrorisme » 27. Dans un passage avalisé par la Cour
suprême, le tribunal fédéral de district avait reconnu ce qui suit :
« La loi balaye d’emblée les dispositions de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats
étrangers qui protègent toutes banques centrales (alinéa 1 du paragraphe b) de
l’article 1611 du titre 28 du code des Etats‑Unis) ; elle élimine également tout
autre obstacle susceptible de découler de la législation fédérale ou de celle d’un
Etat de l’Union, pour peu qu’une décision judiciaire soit dûment rendue… La
loi de 2012 vient ainsi s’ajouter à la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers et à
la loi de 2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme, constituant
une base supplémentaire permettant l’exécution des jugements. » 28
23. Dans l’exposé de l’opinion dissidente commune qu’ils ont joint à l’arrêt
rendu par la Cour suprême en l’affaire Peterson (précitée), le président Roberts et
la juge Sotomayor ont ainsi expliqué l’effet de l’article 502 :
« Tel est précisément l’effet de l’article 8772 : il modifie la loi, pour la présente
procédure uniquement, à seule fin de garantir la victoire des défendeurs.
La loi n’a pas d’autre objectif, ce qui, du reste, n’est guère contesté. Comme
le reconnaît la majorité, la loi « balaye … tout … obstacle susceptible de
découler de la législation fédérale ou de celle d’un Etat de l’Union » et d’empêcher
les défendeurs d’entrer en possession des actifs de la banque Markazi…
Devant le tribunal fédéral de district, cette dernière avait invoqué l’immunité
27 Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., Cour suprême
des Etats-Unis, arrêt du 20 avril 2016, p. 5, juge Ginsburg.
28 Deborah Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., tribunal
fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York, motifs et ordonnance en date du 28 février 2013,
p. 21, cité dans Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., Cour
suprême des Etats-Unis, arrêt du 20 avril 2016, p. 10, juge Ginsburg.
20
tion 1611 (b) (l) . . . Section 8772 (a) (l) eliminates that immunity. Bank
Markazi had argued that its status as a separate juridical entity under federal
common law and international law freed it from liability for Iran’s debts . . .
Section 8772 (c) (3) ensures that the Bank is liable. Bank Markazi had argued
that New York law did not allow respondents to execute their judgments
against the Bank’s assets . . . Section 8772 (a) (l) makes those assets subject to
execution.” 29
24. The practical impact of the above measures is that the assets and interests of
Iran and Iranian entities are subject to enforcement proceedings in various cases in
the USA, even where such assets or interests:
(a) are found to be held by separate juridical entities, such as Bank Markazi, that
are not party to the judgment on liability in respect of which enforcement is
sought, and/or
(b) are held by Iran or Iranian entities (including Bank Markazi) and benefit from
immunities from enforcement proceedings as a matter of international law,
and as required by the Treaty of Amity.
25. Consequent upon the USA’s executive and legislative acts referred to above,
a wide series of claims have been determined, or are underway, against Iran and
Iranian entities in the USA. As at the date of this Application, the US courts have
awarded approximately US$56 billion against Iran in respect of its alleged involvement
in terrorist acts mainly outside the USA 30. Moreover, the US courts have
granted applications to enforce various of these compensatory awards against the
property of Iranian companies, including Iranian State‑owned companies (including
Bank Markazi), which are separate juridical entities under Iranian law.
(ii) Recent US judicial acts
against Iran and Iranian companies
26. In the set of claims comprising Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic
of Iran et al. (as referred to above), the US courts have issued default judgments
ordering Iran to pay in excess of US$2.6 billion, and granted summary judgment
permitting execution against the Blocked Assets pursuant to Section 201 of TRIA
and Section 502 of the 2012 Act.
27. In the course of these proceedings, the US courts have repeatedly dismissed
attempts by Bank Markazi to rely on the immunities to which such property is
entitled (including under Section 1611 (b) (1) of FSIA), and the protections of the
29 Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., US Supreme
Court, judgment dated 20 April 2016, joint dissenting opinion of President Roberts and
Judge Sotomayor, at pp. 7‑8.
30 A list of damages claims and enforcement proceedings determined, or in the course of
being determined, by the US courts is appended to this Application as Annex 2.
21
que lui conférait la loi de 1976 sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers (alinéa 1 du
paragraphe b) de l’article 1611 du titre 28 du code des Etats‑Unis)… L’alinéa
1 du paragraphe a) de l’article 8772 met fin à cette immunité. La banque
Markazi avait argué de ce que la personnalité juridique distincte qu’elle tient
du droit fédéral et du droit international la dégageait de toute responsabilité
à l’égard des dettes de l’Iran. L’alinéa 3 du paragraphe d) de l’article 8772 la
rend désormais responsable à cet égard. La banque Markazi soutenait que le
droit de l’Etat de New York ne permettait pas aux défendeurs d’obtenir l’exécution
contre ses actifs des jugements rendus en leur faveur… L’alinéa 1 du
paragraphe a) de l’article 8772 assujettit ces actifs aux voies d’exécution. » 29
24. Les mesures précitées ont pour conséquence pratique d’assujettir les actifs et
intérêts de l’Iran et d’entités iraniennes aux procédures d’exécution dans plusieurs
affaires aux Etats-Unis, alors même que, selon le cas,
a) il a été établi que lesdits actifs et intérêts étaient détenus par des entités juridiques
distinctes, telle la banque Markazi, qui ne sont pas parties à l’action en
responsabilité ayant donné lieu au jugement à exécuter ;
b) lesdits actifs et intérêts sont détenus par l’Iran ou des entités iraniennes (y compris
la banque Markazi) et bénéficient de l’immunité d’exécution en vertu du
droit international et comme le stipule le traité d’amitié.
25. En conséquence des actes exécutifs et législatifs des Etats-Unis précités,
nombre de demandes contre l’Iran et des entités iraniennes aux Etats-Unis ont été
ou sont en voie d’être accueillies. A la date de la présente requête, les tribunaux
américains avaient condamné l’Iran, à raison de sa prétendue participation à différents
actes terroristes principalement commis en dehors des Etats-Unis, à verser
des dommages-intérêts
d’un montant d’environ 56 milliards de dollars des Etats-
Unis 30. Ils ont par ailleurs fait droit aux demandes d’exécution concernant plusieurs
de ces condamnations à des dommages-intérêts
compensatoires contre les
biens de sociétés iraniennes, dont certaines appartiennent à l’Etat (y compris la
banque Markazi), auxquelles le droit iranien reconnaît une personnalité juridique
distincte.
ii) Décisions de justice rendues récemment aux Etats-Unis à l’encontre
de l’Iran et de sociétés iraniennes
26. Relativement aux demandes formées dans l’affaire Deborah D. Peterson
et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al. (précitée), les tribunaux américains ont prononcé
des jugements par défaut condamnant l’Iran à verser plus de 2,6 milliards de
dollars des Etats-Unis et, à l’issue d’une procédure de référé, autorisé l’exécution
de ces jugements contre les actifs bloqués en vertu de l’article 201 de la loi de 2002
sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme et l’article 502 de la loi de
2012 sur la réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme
en Syrie.
27. Tout au long de ces procédures, les tribunaux américains ont systématiquement
rejeté les tentatives faites par la banque Markazi pour se prévaloir de l’immunité
s’attachant à ces biens (notamment en vertu de l’alinéa 1 du paragraphe b) de
29 Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., Cour suprême
des Etats-Unis, arrêt du 20 avril 2016, opinion dissidente commune du président Roberts et
de la juge Sotomayor, p. 7‑8.
30 On trouvera à l’annexe 2 la liste des actions en dommages-intérêts
et des procédures
d’exécution sur lesquelles les tribunaux américains ont statué ou sont en voie de le faire.
22
Treaty of Amity (including the requirement for recognition of the separate juridical
status of Iranian companies). In summary:
(a) On 28 February 2013, the US District Court rejected Bank Markazi’s motion
to dismiss the enforcement claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and
granted partial summary judgment to the US judgment creditors. Specifically,
the US District Court held that “Congress has abrogated any application of
the Treaty in the FSIA context” and that “TRIA Section 201 (a), E.O. 13599,
and 22 USC Section 8772 expressly pre‑empt any immunity” from enforcement
31.
(b) On 9 July 2013, the US District Court issued a final partial judgment and made
directions for “turnover” of the Blocked Assets pursuant to Section 201 of
TRIA and Section 8772 32. These directions included making provision for the
US judgment creditors to apply for an order authorizing distribution of the
Blocked Assets, which were to be paid into a separate account, within thirty
days of that judgment becoming a “Non‑Appealable Sustained Judgment” 33.
Further, the US District Court issued anti‑suit injunctions restraining Iran
and Bank Markazi from initiating any claim to the Blocked Assets in another
jurisdiction 34.
(c) Bank Markazi appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the
grounds, inter alia, that enforcement against the Blocked Assets pursuant to
Section 201 of TRIA and/or Section 8772 was precluded by the Treaty of
Amity and Section 1611 (b) (I) of FSIA. On 9 July 2014, the US Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Bank Markazi’s appeal, finding that
it did not need to resolve the dispute regarding immunity under the TRIA
because Congress “has changed the law governing this case” by enacting Section
8772 35. Even assuming that this provision is inconsistent with the USA’s
obligations under the Treaty of Amity (which the Court of Appeals found it
was not), “Section 8772 would have to be read to abrogate any inconsistent
provisions in the Treaty” 36.
(d) Bank Markazi appealed to the US Supreme Court on the ground that Section
502 of the 2012 Act is unconstitutional. On 20 April 2016, the US Supreme
31 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al.,
US District Court for the Southern District of New York, opinion and order dated
28 February 2013, at p. 52.
32 Ibid., order dated 9 July 2013 entering partial final judgment and directing turnover of
the Blocked Assets.
33 Defined in paragraph 5 of the US District Court’s order of 9 July 2013 as meaning
“when the time to file an appeal from the partial judgment has expired or, if any appeal is
filed and not dismissed, after the partial judgment is upheld in all material respects on appeal
or after review by writ of certiorari and is no longer subject to review on appeal or review by
writ of certiorari”.
34 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al.,
US District Court for the Southern District of New York, order dated 9 July 2013 entering
partial final judgment and directing turnover of the Blocked Assets, at paras. 10 and 13.
35 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., US Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, opinion dated 9 July 2014, at p. 5.
36 Ibid., at p. 7.
23
l’article 1611 de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers) et de la protection prévue
par le traité d’amitié (notamment quant à l’obligation de reconnaître le statut juridique
distinct des sociétés iraniennes). Pour résumer :
a) Le 28 février 2013, le tribunal fédéral de district a rejeté l’exception d’incompétence
ratione materiae soulevée par la banque Markazi à l’encontre de la
demande d’exécution et, à l’issue d’une procédure de référé, fait droit en partie
à la requête des bénéficiaires du jugement. En particulier, le tribunal a déclaré
que « le Congrès a[vait] suspendu toute application du traité dans le contexte de
la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers » et que « le paragraphe a) de l’article
201 de la loi de 2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme,
le décret 13599 et l’article 8772 du titre 22 du code des Etats-Unis
écart[ai]ent expressément toute immunité » d’exécution 31.
b) Le 9 juillet 2013, le tribunal fédéral de district a prononcé un jugement partiel
définitif et émis des directives en vue de la remise des actifs bloqués en vertu de
l’article 201 de la loi de 2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme
et de l’article 8772 du titre 22 du code des Etats-Unis 32. Selon ces directives,
les bénéficiaires du jugement devaient se voir offrir la possibilité de
demander le prononcé d’une ordonnance de distribution des actifs bloqués,
dont le produit était à verser sur un compte distinct dans les trente jours suivant
la date à laquelle ce jugement passerait en « force de chose jugée » 33. Le tribunal
de district a par ailleurs prononcé des injonctions empêchant l’Iran et la banque
Markazi de revendiquer les actifs bloqués devant toute autre juridiction 34.
c) La banque Markazi s’est pourvue devant la cour d’appel fédérale du deuxième
circuit, faisant valoir, entre autres, que le traité d’amitié et l’alinéa 1 du paragraphe
b) de l’article 1611 de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers faisaient
obstacle à une exécution contre les actifs bloqués en vertu de l’article 201 de la
loi de 2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme et de l’article
8772 du titre 22 du code des Etats-Unis. Le 9 juillet 2014, la cour d’appel a
rejeté le pourvoi de la banque Markazi au motif qu’elle n’avait pas à se prononcer
sur le différend concernant l’immunité au titre de la loi de 2002 sur l’assurance
contre les risques associés au terrorisme, étant donné que, en adoptant
l’article 8772, le Congrès avait « modifié le droit applicable à cette affaire » 35. Et
même à supposer que l’article 8772 soit incompatible avec les obligations
incombant aux Etats-Unis au titre du traité d’amitié (contrairement à ce qu’a
conclu la cour d’appel), « ledit article avait pour effet de rendre inopérante toute
stipulation incompatible du traité » 36.
d) La banque Markazi a interjeté appel devant la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis,
arguant de l’inconstitutionnalité de l’article 502 de la loi de 2012 sur la réduc-
31 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., tribunal
fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York, motifs et ordonnance en date du 28 février
2013, p. 52.
32 Ibid., ordonnance du 9 juillet 2013 portant jugement partiel définitif et remise des
actifs bloqués.
33 Terme défini au paragraphe 5 de l’ordonnance du tribunal de district en date du
9 juillet 2013 comme évoquant le « moment où sont expirés les délais d’appel du jugement
partiel ou, dans le cas où l’appel formé contre celui-
ci est accueilli en tout ou en partie, celui
où il est confirmé dans tous ses aspects essentiels et devient insusceptible d’appel ou autre
recours ».
34 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., tribunal
fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York, ordonnance du 9 juillet 2013 portant jugement
partiel définitif et remise des actifs bloqués, par. 10 et 13.
35 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., cour d’appel fédérale du
deuxième circuit, motifs en date du 9 juillet 2014, p. 5.
36 Ibid., p. 7.
24
Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the US Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, upholding the lawfulness of Section 502 under
the US Constitution 37. On 23 May 2016, the US Supreme Court issued a certified
copy of its judgment and order to the US Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
(e) On 6 June 2016, the US District Court authorized the payment of the Blocked
Assets to the US judgment creditors and closed the proceedings 38.
28. Iran maintains that the assets of Iranian financial institutions and other Iranian
companies have already been seized, or are in the process of being seized and
transferred, or at risk of being seized and transferred, in a number of other proceedings.
For example:
(a) On 22 February 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that
the judgment creditors in Michael Bennett et al. v. Bank Melli et al. are entitled,
pursuant to Section 201 (a) of TRIA, to attach to approximately
US$17.6 million contractually owed to Bank Melli, an instrumentality of Iran
and an Iranian State‑owned company, by Visa Inc. and Franklin Resources
Inc. in respect of the use of Visa credit cards in Iran 39. If Bank Melli’s pending
petition for a rehearing is refused, the US District Court for the Northern
District of California is expected to order “turnover” of the funds owed to
Bank Melli to the judgment creditors.
(b) On 15 June 2010, in Weinstein et al. v. Bank Melli et al., the US Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the judgment creditors were entitled,
pursuant to Section 201 (a) of TRIA, to the attachment and sale of a building
in New York owned by Bank Melli 40. The US court appointed a receiver and
the property was sold on 22 December 2010 for a sale price of approximately
US$1.6 million. On 19 December 2012, the US District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered that the proceeds be disbursed to the judgment
creditors 41.
(c) On 10 August 2011, in Heiser et al. v. Iran, the US District Court for the District
of Columbia held that the sum of approximately US$616,500 owed by the
US telecommunications company Sprint to the Iranian Telecommunication
Infrastructure Co., which the US District Court found was an Iranian
State‑owned company and an instrumentality of Iran, is subject to attachment
and execution pursuant to Section 1610 (g) of FSIA, and ordered that the
funds be turned over to the judgment creditors 42.
37 Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et al., US Supreme
Court, opinion dated 20 April 2016.
38 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., US
District Court for the Southern District of New York, order authorizing distribution of
funds dated 6 June 2016.
39 Michael Bennett et al. v. Bank Melli et al., US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
opinion and order dated 22 February 2016.
40 Weinstein et al. v. Bank Melli et al., US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
opinion dated 15 June 2010.
41 Ibid., US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, order dated 19 December
2012.
42 Estate of Michael Heiser et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, US District Court for the
District of Columbia, opinion and order dated 10 August 2011.
25
tion de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme en Syrie. Le 20 avril 2016,
la Cour suprême a rejeté le pourvoi et confirmé l’arrêt de la cour d’appel fédérale
du deuxième circuit, ainsi que la conformité de la disposition attaquée à la
Constitution des Etats-Unis 37. Le 23 mai 2016, elle a formellement délivré son
arrêt et son ordonnance à la cour d’appel.
e) Le 6 juin 2016, le tribunal fédéral de district a autorisé la distribution des actifs
bloqués aux bénéficiaires du jugement et clos la procédure 38.
28. L’Iran soutient que les actifs d’institutions financières et autres sociétés iraniennes
ont déjà été saisis et transférés, ou sont en voie ou menacés de l’être, dans
le cadre d’un certain nombre de procédures judiciaires, dont voici quelques
exemples :
a) Le 22 février 2016, la cour d’appel fédérale du neuvième circuit a statué que les
bénéficiaires du jugement rendu en l’affaire Michael Bennett et al. v. Bank Melli
étaient en droit, sur le fondement du paragraphe a) de l’article 201 de la loi de
2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme, de procéder à la
saisie de créances contractuelles d’une valeur approximative de 17,6 millions de
dollars des Etats-Unis dues à la banque Melli, qui est un organisme de l’Etat
iranien et une société appartenant à cet Etat, par Visa Inc. et Franklin Resources
Inc., relativement à l’utilisation de cartes de crédit Visa en Iran 39. En cas de
rejet de la requête pendante de la banque Melli tendant à ce que l’affaire soit
instruite à nouveau, tout porte à croire que le tribunal fédéral du district nord
de la Californie ordonnera la remise aux bénéficiaires du jugement des sommes
dues à ladite banque.
b) Le 15 juin 2010, dans l’affaire Weinstein et al. v. Bank Melli et al., la cour d’appel
fédérale du deuxième circuit a statué que les bénéficiaires du jugement
étaient en droit, en vertu du paragraphe a) de l’article 201 de la loi de 2002 sur
l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme, de faire saisir et vendre un
immeuble situé à New York et appartenant à la banque Melli 40. Elle a nommé
un administrateur judiciaire et l’immeuble a été vendu le 22 décembre 2010
pour la somme approximative de 1,6 million de dollars des Etats-Unis. Le
19 décembre 2012, le tribunal fédéral du district est de l’Etat de New York a
ordonné la distribution du produit de la vente aux bénéficiaires du jugement 41.
c) Le 10 août 2011, dans l’affaire Heiser et al. v. Iran, le tribunal fédéral du district
de Columbia a jugé que la somme d’environ 616 500 dollars des Etats-Unis due
par la société de télécommunications américaine Sprint à l’Iranian Telecommunication
Infrastructure Co., qui est une société appartenant à l’Etat iranien et
un organisme dudit Etat, était, aux termes du paragraphe g) de l’article 1610 de
la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers, saisissable en exécution du jugement,
et a ordonné qu’elle soit remise aux bénéficiaires du jugement 42.
37 Bank Markazi, a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran v. Deborah Peterson et. al., Cour suprême
des Etats-Unis, motifs en date du 20 avril 2016.
38 Deborah D. Peterson et al. v. Bank Markazi a.k.a. Central Bank of Iran et al., tribunal
fédéral du district sud de l’Etat de New York, ordonnance du 6 juin autorisant la distribution.
39 Michael Bennett et al. v. Bank Melli et al., cour d’appel fédérale du neuvième district,
motifs et ordonnance en date du 22 février 2016.
40 Weinstein et al. v. Bank Melli et al., cour d’appel fédérale du deuxième circuit, motifs
en date du 15 juin 2010.
41 Ibid., tribunal fédéral du district est de l’Etat de New York, ordonnance du
19 décembre 2012.
42 Estate of Michael Heiser et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, tribunal fédéral du district
de Columbia, motifs et ordonnance en date du 10 août 2011.
26
29. The effect of the enactments and decisions set out above is to confirm the
USA’s unlawful removal of the jurisdictional immunities and immunities from
enforcement to which Iran and Iranian State‑owned companies are entitled under
both customary international law and the Treaty of Amity.
30. Specifically, the various decisions of the US courts in the Peterson case (as
referred to above) confirm that Section 502 of the 2012 Act has been drafted precisely
to secure enforcement against Bank Markazi’s interest in the security entitlements
previously held by Clearstream. Pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s decision
in Bank Markazi v. Peterson et al., the US District Court has ordered that the
Blocked Assets be paid out to the judgment creditors. As a result, there is a real
and immediate risk that such funds will be dissipated.
31. As a result of the USA’s executive, legislative and judicial acts referred to
above, Iran and Iranian entities are suffering ongoing harm, and face actual and
imminent seizure of assets and interests and/or the enforcement of judgments
against third parties (such as international central securities depositories holding
funds or security entitlements in banks in the USA to the ultimate benefit of Iran
and Iranian entities).
IV. Breach of the Treaty of Amity
32. As will be more fully developed in a subsequent stage of the proceedings, the
measures outlined above breach a number of provisions of the Treaty of Amity,
including in particular those expressly referred to below.
(a) Pursuant to Article III (1) of the Treaty of Amity:
“Companies constituted under the applicable laws and regulations of either
High Contracting Party shall have their juridical status recognized within the
territories of the other High Contracting Party. It is understood, however,
that recognition of juridical status does not of itself confer rights upon companies
to engage in the activities for which they are organized. As used in the
present Treaty, ‘companies’ means corporations, partnerships, companies
and other associations, whether or not with limited liability and whether or
not for pecuniary profit.”
It follows that the USA is obliged to recognize the juridical status of Bank Markazi
(which is a “company”, for the purposes of Article III (1) of the Treaty of Amity,
constituted with its own legal personality pursuant to the Banking and Monetary
Act of Iran 1960 as amended in 1972) and all other Iranian companies, including
Iranian State‑owned companies. The right to recognition of juridical status in
Article III (1) is not qualified in any way; and yet the rights of Bank Markazi and
other Iranian entities, as juridical persons distinct from Iran, have been or are
being abrogated by Section 1610 (g) (l) of FSIA, Section 201 (a) of TRIA, Executive
Order 13599 and Section 502 of the 2012 Act, while as a practical matter the
assets and interests of Bank Markazi and other Iranian financial institutions are
under real threat of seizure and transfer by the US courts. Specifically, the Blocked
Assets of Bank Markazi at issue in the Peterson proceedings (as referred to above)
27
29. Les actes législatifs et exécutifs et décisions de justice des Etats-Unis dont
il a été fait état plus haut ont eu pour effet de priver illicitement l’Iran et les sociétés
appartenant à l’Etat iranien de l’immunité de juridiction et d’exécution à
laquelle ils ont droit au regard tant du droit international coutumier que du traité
d’amitié.
30. En particulier, les diverses décisions rendues par les juridictions américaines
dans l’affaire Peterson (précitée) confirment que l’article 502 de la loi de 2012 sur la
réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme en Syrie a été rédigé
dans le but précis de permettre l’exécution sur les intérêts de la banque Markazi
dans des droits sur actifs financiers antérieurement détenus par Clearstream. Faisant
fond sur l’arrêt rendu par la Cour suprême en l’affaire Bank Markazi v. Peterson
et al., le tribunal fédéral de district a ordonné que les actifs bloqués soient distribués
aux bénéficiaires du jugement. Il existe donc un risque réel et imminent de
dispersion des fonds en question.
31. En conséquence des actes législatifs et exécutifs et des décisions de justice
dont il a été fait état ci-
dessus,
l’Iran et diverses entités iraniennes sont victimes
d’un préjudice continu, en tant qu’ils font face à la saisie, déjà effectuée ou imminente,
d’actifs et d’intérêts, ainsi qu’à l’exécution de jugements contre de tierces
parties (tels les dépositaires centraux internationaux de titres qui détiennent des
fonds et titres mobiliers dans des banques aux Etats-Unis pour le compte ultime de
l’Iran et d’entités iraniennes).
IV. Violation du traité d’amitié
32. Comme cela sera exposé de façon plus approfondie à un stade ultérieur de
la procédure, les mesures évoquées plus haut emportent violation de plusieurs dispositions
du traité d’amitié, notamment celles qui sont expressément mentionnées
ci-
dessous.
a) Aux termes du paragraphe 1 de l’article III du traité d’amitié :
« Le statut juridique des sociétés constituées sous le régime des lois et règlements
de l’une des Hautes Parties contractantes applicables en la matière sera
reconnu dans les territoires de l’autre Haute Partie contractante. Il est entendu
toutefois qu’en elle-même la reconnaissance de ce statut juridique ne
donnera
pas aux sociétés le droit de se livrer à l’activité en vue de laquelle
elles sont organisées. Au sens du présent Traité, le terme « sociétés » doit
s’entendre
des sociétés de capitaux ou de personnes, des compagnies et de
toutes associations, qu’elles soient ou non à responsabilité limitée et à but
lucratif. »
Il s’ensuit que les Etats-Unis sont tenus de reconnaître le statut juridique de la
banque Markazi (« société » au sens du paragraphe 1 de l’article III du traité d’amitié,
constituée sous le régime de la loi bancaire et monétaire iranienne de 1960, dans
sa version modifiée en 1972, et dotée de sa propre personnalité juridique), ainsi que
de toutes autres sociétés iraniennes, dont certaines appartiennent à l’Etat. Bien que
le droit à cette reconnaissance, énoncé au paragraphe 1 de l’article III, ne soit soumis
à aucune condition, les droits de la banque Markazi et d’autres entités iraniennes,
en tant que personnes juridiques distinctes de l’Iran, ont été ou sont en
voie d’être abolis par l’alinéa 1 du paragraphe g) de l’article 1610 de la loi sur
l’immunité des Etats étrangers, le paragraphe a) de l’article 201 de la loi de 2002
sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme, le décret 13599 et l’article
502 de la loi de 2012 sur la réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits
28
have been seized and transferred to the US judgment creditors by the US courts,
and now face the real and imminent threat of being dissipated.
(b) Pursuant to Article III (2) of the Treaty of Amity:
“Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall have freedom
of access to the courts of justice and administrative agencies within the
territories of the other High Contracting Party, in all degrees of jurisdiction,
both in defense and pursuit of their rights, to the end that prompt and impartial
justice be done. Such access shall be allowed, in any event, upon terms no
less favourable than those applicable to nationals and companies of such
other High Contracting Party or of any third country. It is understood that
companies not engaged in activities within the country shall enjoy the right of
such access without any requirement of registration or domestication.”
In denying to Bank Markazi and other Iranian State‑owned companies the immunities
that they would otherwise enjoy as a matter of US and international law (and
that State‑owned companies of third States, including central banks, enjoy), the
USA violates their right of freedom of access to US courts with respect to their
ability to defend proceedings brought against them and to pursue their right to
immunity both from jurisdiction and enforcement, and thereby breaches Article
III (2) of the Treaty of Amity. Article XI (4) confirms that
“[n]o enterprise of either High Contracting Party, including corporations,
associations, and government agencies and instrumentalities, which is publicly
owned or controlled shall, if it engages in commercial, industrial, shipping
or other business activities within the territories of the other High Contracting
Party, claim or enjoy, either for itself or for its property, immunity
therein from taxation, suit, execution of judgment or other liability to which
privately owned and controlled enterprises are subject therein.”
This provision is aimed at judgments against enterprises, as opposed to a High
Contracting Party, in respect of their commercial acts. It follows that Iran and
Iranian State‑owned companies are entitled to immunity in respect of acts jure
imperii.
In addition, the enactment of Section 502 of the 2012 Act during the course of
the Peterson case retroactively changed the law by depriving Bank Markazi of
defences upon which it had previously relied, including under US law, and preventing
impartial justice being done.
(c) Pursuant to Article IV (1) of the Treaty of Amity:
“Each High Contracting Party shall at all times accord fair and equitable
treatment to nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party,
and to their property and enterprises; shall refrain from applying unreasona-
29
de l’homme en Syrie, avec pour conséquence concrète que les actifs et intérêts de la
banque Markazi et d’autres institutions financières iraniennes sont exposés à un
risque réel de saisie et de distribution par la justice américaine. Ainsi, les actifs
bloqués de la banque Markazi en cause dans l’affaire Peterson (précitée) ont été
saisis et distribués par des tribunaux américains aux bénéficiaires du jugement,
d’où un risque réel et imminent de dispersion.
b) Aux termes du paragraphe 2 de l’article III du traité d’amitié :
« En vue d’assurer une administration rapide et impartiale de la justice, chacune
des Hautes Parties contractantes accordera, dans ses territoires, aux ressortissants
et aux sociétés de l’autre Haute Partie contractante, libre accès aux
tribunaux judiciaires et aux organismes administratifs, à tous les degrés de la
juridiction, tant pour faire valoir que pour défendre leurs droits. En toute
circonstance, elle leur assurera cet accès dans des conditions non moins favorables
que celles qui sont applicables à ses propres ressortissants et sociétés ou
ceux de tout pays tiers. Il est entendu que la même latitude sera donnée aux
sociétés n’exerçant aucune activité dans le pays, sans qu’elles aient à se faire
immatriculer ou à accomplir des formalités ayant pour objet de les assimiler
aux sociétés nationales. »
En refusant à la banque Markazi et à d’autres sociétés appartenant à l’Etat iranien
l’immunité dont elles pourraient normalement se prévaloir en vertu du droit des
Etats-Unis et du droit international (et dont jouissent les sociétés appartenant à
des Etats tiers, y compris les banques centrales), les Etats-Unis violent leur droit
d’ester librement devant la justice américaine pour se défendre dans les procédures
engagées contre elles et de faire valoir leur droit à l’immunité de juridiction et
d’exécution, manquant ainsi aux dispositions du paragraphe 2 de l’article III du
traité d’amitié. Le paragraphe 4 de l’article XI fournit la confirmation suivante :
« Aucune entreprise de l’une ou l’autre des Hautes Parties contractantes,
qu’il s’agisse de sociétés, d’associations, d’administrations et d’agences
publiques, qui est propriété publique ou sous contrôle public, ne pourra, si elle
exerce dans les territoires de l’autre Haute Partie contractante une activité
commerciale ou industrielle de quelque nature que ce soit, y compris le transport
des marchandises, bénéficier ni prétendre bénéficier, dans lesdits territoires,
pour elle‑même ou pour ses biens, d’une exemption en matière d’impôts,
de poursuites judiciaires, d’exécution des jugements ou d’obligations
d’un autre ordre applicables aux entreprises qui sont propriété privée ou sous
contrôle privé. »
Cette disposition concerne les jugements rendus contre des entreprises, et non
contre une haute partie contractante, à raison de leurs activités commerciales. Il en
découle que l’Iran et les sociétés lui appartenant ont droit à l’immunité en ce qui
concerne les actes jure imperii.
De surcroît, l’adoption de l’article 502 de la loi de 2012 sur la réduction de la
menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme en Syrie, alors que l’affaire Peterson
était en instance, a modifié le droit de façon rétroactive, privant ainsi la banque Markazi
de moyens de défense dont elle avait pu se prévaloir jusque-là, notamment en
vertu du droit des Etats-Unis, et empêchant la justice d’être rendue impartialement.
c) Aux termes du paragraphe 1 de l’article IV du traité d’amitié :
« Chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes accordera en tout temps un
traitement juste et équitable aux ressortissants et aux sociétés de l’autre Haute
Partie contractante, ainsi qu’à leurs biens et leurs entreprises ; elle ne prendra
30
ble or discriminatory measures that would impair their legally acquired rights
and interests; and shall assure that their lawful contractual rights are afforded
effective means of enforcement, in conformity with the applicable laws.”
The treatment currently being accorded to Bank Markazi and other Iranian companies,
including Iranian financial institutions, and their respective assets and
interests, is unfair and inequitable and also discriminatory and unreasonable, and
impairs the legally acquired rights and interests of such entities including enforcement
of their contractual rights, and thus is in breach of Article IV (1) of the Treaty
of Amity. For example, Section 502 of the 2012 Act effected a retroactive change
of the law, which deprived Bank Markazi of defences upon which it had previously
relied, including under US law, and which is explicitly limited to the Peterson proceedings
against Iran (as referred to above).
(d) Pursuant to Article IV (2) of the Treaty of Amity:
“Property of nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party,
including interests in property, shall receive the most constant protection and
security within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, in no case
less than that required by international law. Such property shall not be taken
except for a public purpose, nor shall it be taken without the prompt payment
of just compensation. Such compensation shall be in an effectively realizable
form and shall represent the full equivalent of the property taken; and adequate
provision shall have been made at or prior to the time of taking for the
determination and payment thereof.”
Article IV (2) establishes a right to most constant protection and security that is
“in no case less than that required by international law”, thus incorporating relevant
customary international law protections, including those pertaining to the
immunity of State‑owned companies and their property. In addition, Article IV (2)
establishes a separate protection from takings (which is correctly interpreted to
include takings consequential upon judicial acts). Both these elements of Article
IV (2) have been, and are in the process of being, breached by the USA in
respect of its treatment of Iranian companies, including Iranian State‑owned companies
such as Bank Markazi, and their property. As a practical matter the Blocked
Assets of Bank Markazi at issue in the Peterson proceedings (as referred to above)
have been seized and transferred to the US judgment creditors by the US courts,
and now face the real and imminent threat of being dissipated.
(e) Pursuant to Article V (1) of the Treaty of Amity:
“Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted,
within the territories of the other High Contracting Party: (a) to
lease, for suitable periods of time, real property needed for their residence or
for the conduct of activities pursuant to the present Treaty; (b) to purchase or
otherwise acquire personal property of all kinds; and (c) to dispose of property
of all kinds by sale, testament or otherwise. The treatment accorded in
these respects shall in no event be less favourable than that accorded nationals
and companies of any third country.”
31
aucune mesure arbitraire ou discriminatoire pouvant porter atteinte à leurs
droits ou à leurs intérêts légalement acquis et, en conformité des lois applicables
en la matière, elle assurera des voies d’exécution efficaces à leurs droits
contractuels légitimement nés. »
Le traitement dont font actuellement l’objet diverses sociétés iraniennes, notamment
la banque Markazi et d’autres institutions financières, ainsi que leurs actifs et
intérêts respectifs, est non seulement injuste et inéquitable, mais aussi discriminatoire
et arbitraire. Il porte atteinte à leurs droits et intérêts légalement acquis, y
compris à l’exécution de leurs droits contractuels, et emporte manquement au
paragraphe 1 de l’article IV du traité d’amitié. C’est ainsi que l’article 502 de la loi
de 2012 sur la réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de l’homme en
Syrie a modifié le droit de façon rétroactive, privant la banque Markazi de moyens
de défense dont elle avait pu se prévaloir jusque-là, notamment en vertu du droit
des Etats-Unis, modification qui, de surcroît, est expressément limitée à la procédure
engagée contre l’Iran en l’affaire Peterson (précitée).
d) Aux termes du paragraphe 2 de l’article IV du traité d’amitié :
« La protection et la sécurité des biens appartenant aux ressortissants et aux
sociétés de l’une des Hautes Parties contractantes, y compris les participations
dans des biens, seront assurées de la manière la plus constante dans les territoires
de l’autre Haute Partie contractante, et ne seront inférieures en aucun
cas aux normes fixées par le droit international. Lesdits biens ne pourront être
expropriés que pour cause d’utilité publique et moyennant le paiement rapide
d’une juste indemnité. Cette indemnité devra être fournie sous une forme aisément
convertible en espèces et correspondre à la valeur intégrale des biens
expropriés. Des dispositions adéquates devront être prises, au moment de la
dépossession ou avant cette date, en vue de la fixation et du règlement de
l’indemnité. »
Le paragraphe 2 de l’article IV établit le droit à ce que la protection et la sécurité
soient assurées de la manière la plus constante et à ce qu’elles ne soient « inférieures
en aucun cas aux normes fixées par le droit international », incorporant ainsi au
traité les garanties correspondantes prévues par le droit international coutumier,
notamment celles qui ont trait à l’immunité visant les sociétés appartenant à l’Etat et
leurs biens. Cette disposition établit en outre une protection distincte en matière
d’expropriation (cette notion étant correctement interprétée comme incluant l’expropriation
judiciaire). Par le traitement qu’ils appliquent à des sociétés iraniennes,
dont certaines appartiennent à l’Etat, telle la banque Markazi, ainsi qu’à leurs biens,
les Etats‑Unis ont violé et continuent de violer le paragraphe 2 de l’article IV sur ces
deux points. Sur le plan pratique, les actifs bloqués de la banque Markazi, en cause
dans l’affaire Peterson (précitée), ont été saisis et transférés par des tribunaux américains
aux bénéficiaires du jugement, d’où un risque réel et imminent de dispersion.
e) Aux termes du paragraphe 1 de l’article V du traité d’amitié :
« Les ressortissants et les sociétés de l’une des Hautes Parties contractantes
pourront, dans les territoires de l’autre Haute Partie contractante : a) prendre
à bail, pour des durées appropriées, les biens immeubles dont ils ont besoin à
des fins de résidence ou qui sont nécessaires à la bonne marche des activités
prévues par le présent Traité ; b) acquérir, par voie d’achat ou par tout autre
moyen, des biens mobiliers de toute nature ; et c) aliéner des biens de toute
nature par voie de vente, de testament ou par tout autre moyen. Le traitement
dont ils bénéficient en ces matières ne sera, en aucun cas, moins favorable que
celui qui est accordé aux ressortissants et aux sociétés de tout pays tiers. »
32
The treatment currently being accorded to Bank Markazi and other Iranian companies,
including Iranian financial institutions, and their respective property, interferes
with their rights under Article V (1) of the Treaty of Amity.
(f) Pursuant to Article VII (1) of the Treaty of Amity:
“Neither High Contracting Party shall apply restrictions on the making of
payments, remittances, and other transfers of funds to or from the territories
of the other High Contracting Party, except (a) to the extent necessary to
assure the availability of foreign exchange for payments for goods and services
essential to the health and welfare of its people, or (b) in the case of a
member of the International Monetary Fund, restrictions specifically
approved by the Fund.”
The treatment currently being accorded to Bank Markazi and other Iranian companies,
including Iranian financial institutions, and their respective property, interferes
with their rights under Article VII (1) of the Treaty of Amity.
(g) Pursuant to Article X (1) of the Treaty of Amity:“Between the territories of
the two High Contracting Parties there shall be freedom of commerce and
navigation.”
The treatment currently being afforded to Iran, Bank Markazi and other Iranian
companies, including Iranian financial institutions, and their respective property,
interferes with the right to freedom of commerce between the territories of Iran
and the USA under Article X (1) of the Treaty of Amity.
V. Judgment Requested
33. On the basis of the foregoing, and while reserving the right to supplement,
amend or modify the present Application in the course of further proceedings in
the case, Iran respectfully requests the Court to adjudge, order and declare as follows:
(a) That the Court has jurisdiction under the Treaty of Amity to entertain the
dispute and to rule upon the claims submitted by Iran;
(b) That by its acts, including the acts referred to above and in particular its
(a) failure to recognize the separate juridical status (including the separate
legal personality) of all Iranian companies including Bank Markazi, and
(b) unfair and discriminatory treatment of such entities, and their property,
which impairs the legally acquired rights and interests of such entities including
enforcement of their contractual rights, and (c) failure to accord to such
entities and their property the most constant protection and security that is in
no case less than that required by international law, (d) expropriation of the
property of such entities, and (e) failure to accord to such entities freedom of
access to the US courts, including the abrogation of the immunities to which
Iran and Iranian State‑owned companies, including Bank Markazi, and their
property, are entitled under customary international law and as required by
the Treaty of Amity, and (f) failure to respect the right of such entities to
acquire and dispose of property, and (g) application of restrictions to such
entities on the making of payments and other transfers of funds to or from the
33
Le traitement actuellement appliqué à diverses sociétés iraniennes, notamment à la
banque Markazi et à d’autres institutions financières, ainsi qu’à leurs biens respectifs,
porte atteinte aux droits que leur confère le paragraphe 1 de l’article V du
traité d’amitié.
f) Aux termes du paragraphe 1 de l’article VII du traité d’amitié :
« Aucune des Hautes Parties contractantes n’imposera de restrictions en
matière de paiements, remises et transferts de fonds à destination ou en provenance
des territoires de l’autre Haute Partie contractante, sauf : a) dans la
mesure nécessaire afin que les ressources en devises étrangères soient suffisantes
pour régler le prix des marchandises et des services indispensables à la
santé et au bien-être de sa population ; et b) dans le cas d’un membre du
Fonds monétaire international, s’il s’agit de restrictions expressément approuvées
par le Fonds. »
Le traitement dont font actuellement l’objet diverses sociétés iraniennes, notamment
à la banque Markazi et à d’autres institutions financières, ainsi que leurs
biens respectifs, porte atteinte aux droits que leur confère le paragraphe 1 de l’article
VII du traité d’amitié.
g) Aux termes du paragraphe 1 de l’article X du traité d’amitié : « Il y aura liberté
de commerce et de navigation entre les territoires des deux Hautes Parties
contractantes. »
Le traitement actuellement appliqué à l’Iran et à diverses sociétés iraniennes,
notamment la banque Markazi et d’autres institutions financières, ainsi qu’à leurs
biens respectifs, constitue une entrave au droit à la liberté de commerce entre les
territoires de l’Iran et des Etats-Unis, prévu par le paragraphe 1 de l’article X du
traité d’amitié.
V. Décision demandée
33. Sur la base de ce qui précède et tout en se réservant le droit de compléter, de
modifier ou reviser la présente requête au cours de la suite de la procédure en l’affaire,
l’Iran prie respectueusement la Cour de dire, prescrire et juger :
a) qu’elle a compétence, en vertu du traité d’amitié, pour connaître du différend et
statuer sur les demandes présentées par l’Iran ;
b) que, par leurs actes, notamment ceux exposés ci-
dessus
et en particulier : a) la
non-reconnaissance
du statut juridique distinct (notamment la personnalité
juridique distincte) de toutes les sociétés iraniennes, parmi lesquelles la
banque Markazi, b) le traitement injuste et discriminatoire de ces entités, ainsi
que de leurs biens, lequel porte atteinte aux droits ou aux intérêts légalement
acquis par celles-
ci, dont l’exécution de leurs droits contractuels, c) le fait de ne
pas assurer à ces entités et à leurs biens, de la manière la plus constante, une
protection et une sécurité qui ne doivent en aucun cas être inférieures aux
normes fixées par le droit international, d) l’expropriation des biens de ces entités,
e) le fait de ne pas accorder à ces entités libre accès aux tribunaux des
Etats-Unis, notamment en les privant des immunités que le droit international
coutumier et les dispositions du traité d’amitié confèrent à l’Iran et aux sociétés
lui appartenant, telle la banque Markazi, ainsi qu’à leurs biens, f) le non-respect
du droit de ces entités d’acquérir et d’aliéner des biens, g) l’imposition
à ces entités de restrictions en matière de paiements et autres transferts de fonds
34
USA, and (h) interference with the freedom of commerce, the USA has
breached its obligations to Iran, inter alia, under Articles III (1), III (2), IV (1),
IV (2), V (1), VII (1) and X (1) of the Treaty of Amity;
(c) That the USA shall ensure that no steps shall be taken based on the executive,
legislative and judicial acts (as referred to above) at issue in this case which are,
to the extent determined by the Court, inconsistent with the obligations of the
USA to Iran under the Treaty of Amity;
(d) That Iran and Iranian State‑owned companies are entitled to immunity from
the jurisdiction of the US courts and in respect of enforcement proceedings in
the USA, and that such immunity must be respected by the USA (including
US courts), to the extent established as a matter of customary international
law and required by the Treaty of Amity;
(e) That the USA (including the US courts) is obliged to respect the juridical status
(including the separate legal personality), and to ensure freedom of access
to the US courts, of all Iranian companies, including State‑owned companies
such as Bank Markazi, and that no steps based on the executive, legislative
and judicial acts (as referred to above), which involve or imply the recognition
or enforcement of such acts shall be taken against the assets or interests of Iran
or any Iranian entity or national;
(f) That the USA is under an obligation to make full reparations to Iran for the
violation of its international legal obligations in an amount to be determined
by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. Iran reserves the right
to introduce and present to the Court in due course a precise evaluation of the
reparations owed by the USA; and
(g) Any other remedy the Court may deem appropriate.
34. For the purposes of Article 31 (3) of the Statute and Article 35 (1) of the
Rules of Court, Iran declares its intention to exercise the right to designate a judge
ad hoc.
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has designated the undersigned
as its Agent for the purposes of these proceedings. All communications relating to
this case should be sent to the Agent Bureau of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic
of Iran, De Werf 15, 4th Floor, 2544 EH, Den Haag.
14 June 2016.
(Signed) M. H. Zahedin Labbaf,
Agent of the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
35
à destination ou en provenance des Etats-Unis, h) l’entrave à la liberté de commerce,
les Etats-Unis ont manqué à leurs obligations envers l’Iran, notamment
à celles que leur imposent les paragraphes 1 et 2 de l’article III, les paragraphes 1
et 2 de l’article IV, le paragraphe 1 de l’article V, le paragraphe 1 de l’article VII
et le paragraphe 1 de l’article X du traité d’amitié ;
c) que les Etats-Unis doivent veiller à ce qu’aucune mesure ne soit prise sur la base
des actes exécutifs et législatifs et décisions de justice (dont il a été fait état plus
haut) en cause dans la présente affaire, lesquels sont, autant que déterminé par
la Cour, incompatibles avec les obligations qui leur incombent envers l’Iran au
titre du traité d’amitié ;
d) que l’Iran et les sociétés propriété de l’Etat iranien jouissent de l’immunité de
juridiction devant les tribunaux des Etats-Unis et à l’égard des procédures
d’exécution dans ce pays, et que cette immunité doit être respectée par celui-
ci
(notamment ses tribunaux), dans la mesure établie par le droit international
coutumier et exigée par le traité d’amitié ;
e) que les Etats-Unis (y compris leurs tribunaux) sont tenus de respecter le statut
juridique (y compris la personnalité juridique distincte) de toutes les sociétés
iraniennes, y compris celles qui appartiennent à l’Etat, telle la banque Markazi,
et de leur accorder libre accès à leurs tribunaux, et qu’aucune mesure fondée sur
les actes exécutifs et législatifs et décisions de justice (dont il a été fait état plus
haut), qui emporte ou suppose la reconnaissance ou l’exécution desdits actes et
décisions de justice, ne sera prise contre les actifs ou les intérêts de l’Iran, ni
contre une entité ou un ressortissant iranien ;
f) que les Etats-Unis, pour avoir enfreint leurs obligations internationales, sont
tenus de réparer intégralement le préjudice ainsi causé à l’Iran, selon un montant
à déterminer par la Cour à un stade ultérieur de l’instance, l’Iran se réservant
le droit d’introduire et de présenter à cette dernière, en temps utile, une
évaluation précise des réparations dues par les Etats-Unis ;
g) toute autre mesure de réparation que la Cour jugerait appropriée.
34. En vertu du paragraphe 1 de l’article 35 du Règlement de la Cour, l’Iran
déclare son intention d’exercer la faculté de désigner un juge ad hoc que lui confère
le paragraphe 3 de l’article 31 du Statut.
Le Gouvernement de la République islamique d’Iran a désigné le soussigné
comme agent dans le cadre de la présente instance. Toutes les communications
ayant trait à cette affaire devront être adressées au bureau de l’agent à l’ambassade
de la République islamique d’Iran, De Werf 15, 4e étage, 2544 EH, La Haye.
Le 14 juin 2016.
L’agent du Gouvernement
de la République islamique d’Iran,
(Signé) M. H. Zahedin Labbaf.
36
43
LIST OF ANNEXES*
Annex 1. Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between
Iran and the United States of America.
Annex 2. Claims pending against the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iranian State
Entities as of 12 June 2016 (Table 1).
Judgments issued against the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iranian State
entities and Iranian officials as of 12 June 2016 (Table 2).
Enforcement proceedings as of 12 June 2016 (Table 3).
Annex 3. US Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (as originally enacted).
US Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (1988 amendments).
Anti-Terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations
Act of 1997.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (introducing
Section 1605A FSIA).
Section 1245 (c) of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012.
Executive Order 13599 — Blocking Property of the Government of
Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions.
Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012.
U.S. Code. Title 28, Chapter 97: Jurisdiction and Venue (references and
annotations).
* Annexes not reproduced in print version, but available in electronic version on the
Court’s website (http://www.icj-cij.org, under “cases”).
37
43
LISTE DES ANNEXES*
Annexe 1. Traité d’amitié, de commerce et de droits consulaires entre les Etats-
Unis d’Amérique et l’Iran.
Annexe 2. Actions en cours contre la République islamique d’Iran et des entités
publiques iraniennes au 12 juin 2016 (tableau 1).
Jugements prononcés contre la République islamique d’Iran des entités
publiques iraniennes et des agents publics iraniens au 12 juin 2016
(tableau 2).
Procédures d’exécution au 12 juin 2016 (tableau 3).
Annexe 3. Loi de 1976 sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers (1re version en vigueur).
Loi de 1976 sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers (modifiée en 1988).
Loi de 1996 sur la lutte contre le terrorisme et l’application effective de
la peine de mort.
Loi portant affectation de crédits pour les opérations à l’étranger, le
financement à l’exportation et les programmes connexes pour l’exercice
1997.
Loi de 2002 sur l’assurance contre les risques associés au terrorisme.
Loi sur le budget de la défense nationale pour l’exercice 2008 (introduisant
l’article 1605A de la loi sur l’immunité des Etats étrangers).
Paragraphe c) de l’article 1245 de la loi sur le budget de la défense
nationale pour l’exercice 2012.
Décret 13599 sur le blocage des biens de l’Etat iranien et des institutions
financières iraniennes.
Loi de 2012 sur la réduction de la menace iranienne et sur les droits de
l’homme en Syrie.
Titre 28 du chapitre 97 du code des Etats-Unis : procédure judiciaire
(références et annotations).
* Annexes non reproduites en version papier, mais disponibles en version électronique
sur le site Internet de la Cour (http://www.icj-cij.org, onglet « affaires »).
IMPRIMÉ EN FRANCE – PRINTED IN FRANCE
Application instituting proceedings