Tweet
DEFENSE OF TURKISH BANKS IN CALIFORNIA ARMENIAN COMPENSATION CASE
By Orhan Kemal Cengiz
Today's Zaman
Sept 27 2011
Turkey
In my column dated Sept. 15 I quoted some comments made by lawyers
representing the plaintiffs in the Alex Bakalian case (Bakalian et al
v. Central Bank of Turkey, Ziraat Bank and the Republic of Turkey),
in which Armenian-Americans claimed compensation for land expropriated
from Ottoman Armenian citizens in 1915 and afterward.
The particular land for which compensation is sought is now the
İncirlik air base, a US Air Force installation in Turkey. This case
is being heard by a California district court, and the plaintiffs
are suing under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows
plaintiffs to sue sovereign nations in US courts.
I think the case has many different dimensions. On the political
level and as a means of publicity, it has already managed to bring
some Armenian claims to international public attention. In terms of
the legal battle, though, there is apparently a long way to go before
concrete results are achieved.
The defendants in the case recently submitted their defense to the
court. A defense petition was submitted on behalf of the Central
Bank of Turkey and Ziraat Bankası. In the following paragraphs I
will try to summarize the statements and arguments the defendants made.
At the beginning of the petition the defendants clearly state that this
defense petition was submitted for themselves and themselves only,
meaning that the other defendant, the Republic of Turkey, had not
submitted anything on its behalf. Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
has declared before that it does not recognize the jurisdiction of an
American court against Turkey. The banks say in the statement that "the
original Ottoman Turkish or Turkish-language versions of the orders,
regulations, resolutions, directives, decrees and laws referenced [in
the case] speak for themselves, except that the Republic of Turkey was
not founded until Oct. 29, 1923." The banks further argue that for the
purposes of this case "the Bank Defendants qualify as 'foreign states'
and therefore posses sovereign immunity from the subject matter."
Another argument submitted by the banks, as expected, concerns state
sovereignty. They say: "[the] Plaintiffs' complaint, every claim for
relief asserted therein, and the State Doctrine, pursuant to which
the courts of one country may not sit in judgment on the domestic acts
of another government... Because they conflict, and are inconsistent,
with the claims agreement between the United States and the Republic
of Turkey, signed [in] Ankara [on] Oct. 25, 1934..."
The banks also claim that: "[the] Plaintiffs have not alleged facts
showing that they are the lawful heirs of, or successors-in-interest
to, purported ancestors from whom the Bank Defendants allegedly
expropriated property nearly 100 years ago."
Another argument deals with the statute of limitations. They said:
"the putative class Plaintiffs purport to represent are barred by
all applicable and lawful statutes of limitation, including, without
limitation, [the] California Code of Civil Procedure and [the] Turkish
Code of Obligations." The defendant banks continue in this way, which
I found interesting: "[the] claims of the putative class Plaintiffs
purport to represent are barred by the Political Question Doctrine,
pursuant to which matters that are political in nature are to be
resolved by the Executive or Legislative branches of the government,
rather than the judiciary." I guess this would be one of the core legal
questions which must be answered in order to proceed in this case. I
am also very curious to hear the counterarguments of the plaintiffs.
This is an interesting case. I hope Bakalian's lawyers will also send
me their submissions to the court, and then we will be able to look
at the case from different angles. I will try to follow and share
with you subsequent developments in the case. I would like to thank Ms.
Beril Eski from the Agos weekly, who kindly sent me the original
English defense petition of the two Turkish banks in this case.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-258176-defense-of-turkish-banks-in-california-armenian-compensation-case.html
By Orhan Kemal Cengiz
Today's Zaman
Sept 27 2011
Turkey
In my column dated Sept. 15 I quoted some comments made by lawyers
representing the plaintiffs in the Alex Bakalian case (Bakalian et al
v. Central Bank of Turkey, Ziraat Bank and the Republic of Turkey),
in which Armenian-Americans claimed compensation for land expropriated
from Ottoman Armenian citizens in 1915 and afterward.
The particular land for which compensation is sought is now the
İncirlik air base, a US Air Force installation in Turkey. This case
is being heard by a California district court, and the plaintiffs
are suing under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows
plaintiffs to sue sovereign nations in US courts.
I think the case has many different dimensions. On the political
level and as a means of publicity, it has already managed to bring
some Armenian claims to international public attention. In terms of
the legal battle, though, there is apparently a long way to go before
concrete results are achieved.
The defendants in the case recently submitted their defense to the
court. A defense petition was submitted on behalf of the Central
Bank of Turkey and Ziraat Bankası. In the following paragraphs I
will try to summarize the statements and arguments the defendants made.
At the beginning of the petition the defendants clearly state that this
defense petition was submitted for themselves and themselves only,
meaning that the other defendant, the Republic of Turkey, had not
submitted anything on its behalf. Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
has declared before that it does not recognize the jurisdiction of an
American court against Turkey. The banks say in the statement that "the
original Ottoman Turkish or Turkish-language versions of the orders,
regulations, resolutions, directives, decrees and laws referenced [in
the case] speak for themselves, except that the Republic of Turkey was
not founded until Oct. 29, 1923." The banks further argue that for the
purposes of this case "the Bank Defendants qualify as 'foreign states'
and therefore posses sovereign immunity from the subject matter."
Another argument submitted by the banks, as expected, concerns state
sovereignty. They say: "[the] Plaintiffs' complaint, every claim for
relief asserted therein, and the State Doctrine, pursuant to which
the courts of one country may not sit in judgment on the domestic acts
of another government... Because they conflict, and are inconsistent,
with the claims agreement between the United States and the Republic
of Turkey, signed [in] Ankara [on] Oct. 25, 1934..."
The banks also claim that: "[the] Plaintiffs have not alleged facts
showing that they are the lawful heirs of, or successors-in-interest
to, purported ancestors from whom the Bank Defendants allegedly
expropriated property nearly 100 years ago."
Another argument deals with the statute of limitations. They said:
"the putative class Plaintiffs purport to represent are barred by
all applicable and lawful statutes of limitation, including, without
limitation, [the] California Code of Civil Procedure and [the] Turkish
Code of Obligations." The defendant banks continue in this way, which
I found interesting: "[the] claims of the putative class Plaintiffs
purport to represent are barred by the Political Question Doctrine,
pursuant to which matters that are political in nature are to be
resolved by the Executive or Legislative branches of the government,
rather than the judiciary." I guess this would be one of the core legal
questions which must be answered in order to proceed in this case. I
am also very curious to hear the counterarguments of the plaintiffs.
This is an interesting case. I hope Bakalian's lawyers will also send
me their submissions to the court, and then we will be able to look
at the case from different angles. I will try to follow and share
with you subsequent developments in the case. I would like to thank Ms.
Beril Eski from the Agos weekly, who kindly sent me the original
English defense petition of the two Turkish banks in this case.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-258176-defense-of-turkish-banks-in-california-armenian-compensation-case.html