D.C. Circuit Narrows Victims’ Path to Recovery

[vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern”][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]

By Rossana Baeza

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA)1 immunizes a foreign state from suit in U.S. courts unless an exception under that law, such as the “expropriation exception,”2 applies.3  Under the expropriation exception, a “foreign state shall not be immune” if “rights in property [are] taken in violation of international law are in issue” and if there is a requisite “commercial nexus.” 4  There are two ways to satisfy the “commercial nexus” requirement: either the property at issue “is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state” (the first clause), or the property at issue “is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States” (the second clause). 5  Recently in de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary,6  the D.C. Circuit narrowly interpreted the second clause in a way that nullifies the expropriation exception.

De Csepel involved the Herzog family’s efforts to reclaim a valuable art collection that the Hungarian government and Nazi forces collaboratively seized during the Holocaust.7 The Herzog family sued the Republic of Hungary, three of Hungary’s museums, and a state university.8 Because the property at issue was located outside of the United States, only the second clause of the “commercial nexus” requirement was available to defeat sovereign immunity. Focusing on the “agency and instrumentality” language of the second clause, Hungary argued this clause was applicable to the art museums and state university—Hungary’s agencies and instrumentalities—but not to Hungary itself—the “foreign state.”9 Thus, Hungary proposed, only the art museums and state university “are proper defendants and . . . [Hungary] should be dismissed.” 10 The Court agreed with Hungary, adding that it “would hold that a foreign state retains its immunity unless the first clause of the commercial-activity nexus is met,”11 and then instructed the District Court to dismiss Hungary.12 Victims’ advocates may view de Csepel as problematic for several reasons. Currently pending is a potential Supreme Court review. 13

Rossana Baeza
Rossana Baeza

Advocates for victims may argue that the de Csepel decision fails to give the expropriation exception its intended breadth. It can be argued the decision deviates from the plain text of the expropriation exception, which provides two independent ways of satisfying the commercial nexus requirement so that a “foreign state shall not be immune,” as evidenced by the disjunctive “or” that separates both clauses. As the dissent in de Csepel pointed out, “[a]lthough § 1605(a)(3) provides that a foreign state shall not be immune from suit, the majority crosses out the ‘not’ and holds that the foreign state shall be immune” if only the second clause is satisfied. 14 Requiring a plaintiff to meet the first clause as a condition precedent to invoking the second makes it more difficult to sue foreign states in situations where the property is located outside of the United States.

Even more troubling to victims’ advocates is that the decision nullifies the “commercial nexus” exception in certain instances where an agency or instrumentality of a foreign sovereign “operates” but does not “own” the property at issue. Under de Csepel, a plaintiff who cannot sue a foreign state under the first clause is left only with the possibility of suing an agency or instrumentality under the second clause. Yet advocates for a foreign sovereign may argue such possibility should be deemed foreclosed when the agency or instrumentality “operates” property that an immune foreign state “owns”: the suit may be dismissed for nonjoinder of the foreign state under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should the court find that the immune foreign state, as the owner of the property at issue, is necessary and indispensible. This is precisely the issue facing the Herzog family after the D.C. Circuit ordered the lower court to dismiss Hungary as a defendant.15 The remaining defendant museums and university argued to the District Court that “the [entire] action must be dismissed” because Hungary “is entitled to sovereign immunity” and “is a required party that cannot be joined” under Rule 19.16  Congress could not have intended such a result. •

Rossana Baeza is a litigation associate at Zumpano Patricios, P.A., who focuses her practice on international law and health care matters. You can reach her at rbaeza@zplaw.com or (305) 444-5565.


1) Pub. L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.).

2) 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) (2012).

3) See id. § 1604.

4) See id. § 1605(a)(3).

5) Id.

6)  859 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

7) Id. at 1097.

8) Id.

9) Id. at 1104.


11) Id. at 1107.

12) Id. at 1110.

13) See de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 859 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017), petition for cert. filed, 86 U.S.L.W. 3640 (U.S. June 25, 2018) (No. 17-1165) (inviting “[t]he Solicitor General . . . to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States”).

14) Id. at 1111 (Randolph, J., dissenting in part).

15)  Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 27–28, de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 2018 WL 1028055 (No. 17-1165).

16) Motion to Dismiss by Hungary, the Hungarian National Gallery, the Museum of Fine Arts, the Museum of Applied Arts, the Budapest University of Technology and Economics, and Magyar Nemzeti Vagyonkezelő Zrt at 25–30, de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 808 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2011) (No. 10-1261); Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings in This Matter Pending Resolution of Plaintiffs’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 808 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2011) (No. 10-1261).

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

You May Also Like

Willard Shepard Receives Special Honor at U.S. Supreme Court

His outstanding TV work earned him six Emmy Awards.

Miami Developer Emerges Victorious in Real Estate Lawsuit With Help of TA PLLC

The conclusion of multi-year litigation on multiple fronts has allowed the defendant to resume their business activities.

Palm Beach Names Joanne M. O’Connor Town Attorney

The Palm Beach Town Council passed a resolution recognizing O’Connor’s new role.

Fort Lauderdale High School Students Selected as 2024 Conrad & Scherer Pathways to Careers in Law Fellows

Seniors from this year’s and last year’s classes will be eligible to apply for a paid summer internship at the law firm.

Other Posts

Annual Joint Tax & Estate Planning Seminar Draws Over 350 Industry Professionals 

The theme centered around planning for an uncertain future.

Development Specialists, Inc. Holds Bankruptcy Bar Networking Event in Fort Lauderdale

The company has been one of the leading providers of management consulting and financial advisory services for 45 years.

Siblings Boost Prestigious Fort Lauderdale Trial Law Firm as it Celebrates 50th Anniversary

William Scherer, III and Former Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer will serve as Partners at the firm.

Bryant Miller Olive P.A. Named As Best Law Firm in Public Finance Law by U.S. News

Bryant Miller Olive P.A. (BMO) was recently honored as a 2023 Tier 1 National “Best Law Firm” for Public Finance Law by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®. BMO was also recognized in U.S.

Drew Limsky

Drew Limsky



Drew Limsky joined Lifestyle Media Group in August 2020 as Editor-in-Chief of South Florida Business & Wealth. His first issue of SFBW, October 2020, heralded a reimagined structure, with new content categories and a slew of fresh visual themes. “As sort of a cross between Forbes and Robb Report, with a dash of GQ and Vogue,” Limsky says, “SFBW reflects South Florida’s increasingly sophisticated and dynamic business and cultural landscape.”

Limsky, an avid traveler, swimmer and film buff who holds a law degree and Ph.D. from New York University, likes to say, “I’m a doctor, but I can’t operate—except on your brand.” He wrote his dissertation on the nonfiction work of Joan Didion. Prior to that, Limsky received his B.A. in English, summa cum laude, from Emory University and earned his M.A. in literature at American University in connection with a Masters Scholar Award fellowship.

Limsky came to SFBW at the apex of a storied career in journalism and publishing that includes six previous lead editorial roles, including for some of the world’s best-known brands. He served as global editor-in-chief of Lexus magazine, founding editor-in-chief of custom lifestyle magazines for Cadillac and Holland America Line, and was the founding editor-in-chief of Modern Luxury Interiors South Florida. He also was the executive editor for B2B magazines for Acura and Honda Financial Services, and he served as travel editor for Conde Nast. Magazines under Limsky’s editorship have garnered more than 75 industry awards.

He has also written for many of the country’s top newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, USA Today, Worth, Robb Report, Afar, Time Out New York, National Geographic Traveler, Men’s Journal, Ritz-Carlton, Elite Traveler, Florida Design, Metropolis and Architectural Digest Mexico. His other clients have included Four Seasons, Acqualina Resort & Residences, Yahoo!, American Airlines, Wynn, Douglas Elliman and Corcoran. As an adjunct assistant professor, Limsky has taught journalism, film and creative writing at the City University of New York, Pace University, American University and other colleges.