Summary
This D.C. Circuit opinion addresses whether the 1945 expropriation of real property in Soviet-occupied East Germany falls under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception or qualifies as a non-actionable “domestic taking.” The court held that the seizure implicated the separate sovereignties of both Germany and the Soviet Union, thereby constituting an international taking rather than a domestic one. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings on whether the taking violated international law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 1945 expropriation of the estate constitutes a “domestic taking” that falls outside the FSIA’s expropriation exception
- Whether the district court erred in denying BVVG’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction
Holdings
- The expropriation was not a domestic taking and therefore falls within the FSIA’s expropriation exception.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the 1945 expropriation of the Estate was not a domestic taking. Whereas a domestic taking does “not interfere with relations among states,” a taking “implicate[s] the international legal system” if it “concerns relations among sovereign states.”” (at 500)
“The district court held, and we affirm, that the expropriation was not a domestic taking.” (at 500)
Factual background
After World War II the Soviet‑controlled sector of Germany expropriated a large estate owned by the Schubarth family. Ms. Schubarth, now a U.S. citizen, inherited any remaining interest and sued BVVG, the successor to the German trust that holds the property, alleging violation of the FSIA’s expropriation exception.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. On remand the district court denied BVVG’s motion to dismiss, finding the expropriation was not a domestic taking. The appellant appealed that denial.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.