Tweet
TURKISH BANKS NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN U.S. COURTS FOR TAKING OF PROPERTY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE VICTIMS
http://www.armradio.am/en/2013/04/05/turkish-banks-not-immune-from-suit-in-u-s-courts-for-taking-of-property-of-armenian-genocide-victims/
12:21 05.04.2013
On March 26, 2013, a U.S. federal district court in Los Angeles sided
with Armenian plaintiffs in a hard-fought case involving reparations
for land seized from Armenians in Turkey during the Armenian Genocide.
Nearly 15 months after the Turkish Central Bank and T.C. Ziraat
Bankasi, a state-owned agricultural bank, asserted sovereign immunity
and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, the court in a landmark
decision determined that the Banks can be held to answer for the
alleged expropriation of property of Ottoman and Turkish nationals when
the taking is incident to mass human rights abuses, including genocide.
The lawsuit, filed by three descendants of Armenian Genocide
victims in December 2010 under named plaintiff Alex Bakalian, Case
Number 2:10-cv-09596, names as defendants the Republic of Turkey,
the Central Bank of Turkey, and T.C. Ziraat Bankasi. The complaint
accuses the defendants of stealing and then profiting from land that
was illegally seized during the Armenian Genocide, when the Ottoman
Turks drove Armenians from the Adana region of southern Turkey. The
Republic of Turkey never appeared in the case despite being validly
served with the complaint.
The recent decision also applies to a related case, styled as
a purported class action under named class representative Garbis
Davoyan, Case Number 2:10-cv-05636. The Banks filed similar motions
to dismiss in both cases and the court issued a joint opinion focused
on the facts alleged in Davoyan and the separate arguments developed
by the two sets of plaintiffs.
Following long-established rules of immunity recognized by all
nations, U.S. law abrogates the immunity from suit in U.S. courts
that is traditionally afforded to foreign states and their agencies
and instrumentalities in a few limited situations. The court was
not persuaded by arguments that the Banks were not immune from
suit because the allegations concerned commercial activity with a
connection to the United States. The court also rejected an argument
pursued by the Davoyan plaintiffs that the expropriation exception
to the immunity rule applied because the plaintiffs' ancestors had
effectively been stripped of their Ottoman nationality at the time
of the taking. Rather, the court adopted the Bakalian plaintiffs'
argument that focused on the well-developed body of human rights law
that! has emerged in recent decades and argued successfully that
international law is violated even when a state expropriates the
property of its own nationals, if the taking occurs in the context
of massive human rights abuses. This decision is in line with those
of other federal courts around the country, as well as human rights
treaties that Turkey has signed and ratified.
Although the court's jurisdiction to hear the case is now established,
the court ultimately determined that both cases should be dismissed
because they presented political questions. That issue is now subject
to appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Center for
Armenian Remembrance informs.
From: Baghdasarian
http://www.armradio.am/en/2013/04/05/turkish-banks-not-immune-from-suit-in-u-s-courts-for-taking-of-property-of-armenian-genocide-victims/
12:21 05.04.2013
On March 26, 2013, a U.S. federal district court in Los Angeles sided
with Armenian plaintiffs in a hard-fought case involving reparations
for land seized from Armenians in Turkey during the Armenian Genocide.
Nearly 15 months after the Turkish Central Bank and T.C. Ziraat
Bankasi, a state-owned agricultural bank, asserted sovereign immunity
and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, the court in a landmark
decision determined that the Banks can be held to answer for the
alleged expropriation of property of Ottoman and Turkish nationals when
the taking is incident to mass human rights abuses, including genocide.
The lawsuit, filed by three descendants of Armenian Genocide
victims in December 2010 under named plaintiff Alex Bakalian, Case
Number 2:10-cv-09596, names as defendants the Republic of Turkey,
the Central Bank of Turkey, and T.C. Ziraat Bankasi. The complaint
accuses the defendants of stealing and then profiting from land that
was illegally seized during the Armenian Genocide, when the Ottoman
Turks drove Armenians from the Adana region of southern Turkey. The
Republic of Turkey never appeared in the case despite being validly
served with the complaint.
The recent decision also applies to a related case, styled as
a purported class action under named class representative Garbis
Davoyan, Case Number 2:10-cv-05636. The Banks filed similar motions
to dismiss in both cases and the court issued a joint opinion focused
on the facts alleged in Davoyan and the separate arguments developed
by the two sets of plaintiffs.
Following long-established rules of immunity recognized by all
nations, U.S. law abrogates the immunity from suit in U.S. courts
that is traditionally afforded to foreign states and their agencies
and instrumentalities in a few limited situations. The court was
not persuaded by arguments that the Banks were not immune from
suit because the allegations concerned commercial activity with a
connection to the United States. The court also rejected an argument
pursued by the Davoyan plaintiffs that the expropriation exception
to the immunity rule applied because the plaintiffs' ancestors had
effectively been stripped of their Ottoman nationality at the time
of the taking. Rather, the court adopted the Bakalian plaintiffs'
argument that focused on the well-developed body of human rights law
that! has emerged in recent decades and argued successfully that
international law is violated even when a state expropriates the
property of its own nationals, if the taking occurs in the context
of massive human rights abuses. This decision is in line with those
of other federal courts around the country, as well as human rights
treaties that Turkey has signed and ratified.
Although the court's jurisdiction to hear the case is now established,
the court ultimately determined that both cases should be dismissed
because they presented political questions. That issue is now subject
to appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Center for
Armenian Remembrance informs.
From: Baghdasarian