Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considers related appeals arising from the Herzog family’s effort to recover artwork allegedly seized by Hungary and its Nazi collaborators during and after World War II. The court addresses whether the claims fall within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception, including the domestic-takings rule, wartime takings, de facto statelessness, and the effect of a preexisting treaty. The court concludes that the plaintiffs failed to establish jurisdiction and affirms the district court’s judgments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the FSIA's expropriation exception confers jurisdiction over claims concerning artwork allegedly taken by Nazi German officials during the wartime occupation of Hungary.
- Whether the domestic-takings rule can be avoided by characterizing the Herzog family members as de facto stateless when their property was taken.
- Whether the court could exercise jurisdiction over two paintings allegedly retaken by Hungary during the postwar period, notwithstanding the domestic-takings rule and the 1973 U.S.-Hungary claims-settlement agreement.
- Whether the district court could reconsider its earlier interlocutory determinations that jurisdiction existed over the two postwar-retaken paintings.
Holdings
- The heirs did not establish a legally sufficient claim that Germany's wartime taking of the sculpture violated the international law of expropriation. The FSIA's expropriation exception therefore did not confer jurisdiction.
- The court did not need to resolve whether Germany was legally responsible for the other wartime takings because, even if Germany were responsible, the heirs still could not establish that wartime takings fall within the FSIA's expropriation exception.
- The heirs did not establish that the international law of expropriation protects de facto stateless persons from takings by the state of their de jure nationality, or that such protection had crystallized into a binding rule of customary international law. The domestic-takings rule therefore barred jurisdiction.
- The district court properly reconsidered its earlier interlocutory jurisdictional rulings and correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over claims concerning both paintings.
Key quotations
“We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court.” (at 4)
“We heed that directive here.” (at 23)
“We have seen no evidence of that body of law’s accommodating the claims of those who, de facto or otherwise, belong to no state.” (at 29)
“As explained above, it has not.” (at 33)
Factual background
The Herzog family owned a large art collection in prewar Hungary. During Hungary's alliance with Nazi Germany and the German occupation of Hungary in 1944, Hungarian authorities and Nazi collaborators confiscated much of the collection, while the family fled persecution and genocide. Some artwork was returned after the war but was later retaken by the Hungarian government; the heirs ultimately sought recovery or compensation in U.S. courts.
Procedural history
The heirs filed suit in 2010 asserting jurisdiction under the FSIA's expropriation and commercial-activity exceptions and seeking return of or compensation for artwork. The district court and D.C. Circuit addressed jurisdiction in several earlier decisions, including de Csepel II, III, IV, V, and VI. After the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp and this court's decision in Simon III, the district court dismissed claims concerning the remaining artworks, including wartime takings, alleged takings from de facto stateless persons, and two postwar retakings. The D.C. Circuit affirmed both judgments and the dismissal of the litigation in its entirety.