Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:29:05.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alexander Blumrosen  and
Fleur Malet-Deraedt
Alexander Blumrosen
Affiliation:
Bernard-Hertz-Béejot, Paris
Fleur Malet-Deraedt
Affiliation:
Bernard-Hertz-Béejot, Paris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In three cases decided on the same day, the French Court of Cassation held that the provisional attachments of funds belonging to the Republic of Argentina by NML Capital Ltd. (NML) were void on the ground of sovereign immunity from enforcement because the funds were intended to finance state noncommercial activities and had not been subject to an express waiver of immunity by Argentina. These cases are the first judicial application by the Court of Cassation of the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004 UN Convention), which France signed on January 17, 2007, and ratified on June 28, 2011.

Keywords

Sovereign immunityprovisional attachment of noncommercial property of a state2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Propertycustomary international law
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 107 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 638 - 644
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., Mar. 28, 2013, at http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/premiere_chambre_civile_568/(to be reported in the Bulletin d’information de la Cour de cassation). Translations from the French are by the authors.

2 Loi 2011-734 du 28 juin 2011 autorisant la ratification de la convention des Nations unies sur les immunités juridictionnelles des États et de leurs biens, J.O., June 29, 2011, p. 10953. For the 2004 UN Convention, see GA Res. 59/38, annex (Dec. 2, 2004) (not yet in force).

3 Fiscal Agency Agreement Between the Republic of Argentina and Bankers Trust Company, Fiscal Agent (Oct. 19, 1994), at http://www.shearman.com/files/upload/Fiscal-Agency-Agreement.pdf [hereinafter FAA].

4 NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., No. 1:03-cv-08845-TPG (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2006) (unreported).

5 Decisions of courts of original jurisdiction Reviewed in the following NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina judgments: Cour d’appel [CA] Paris, 4e pôle, 8e ch., Jan. 27, 2011, No. 10/03378 (unreported) [hereinafter CA Paris Jan. 27, 2011]; CA Paris, 4e pôle, 8e ch., Dec. 9, 2010, No. 10/00390, at http://www.dalloz.fr/Recherche?famille-id=JURISPRUDENCES&fromFonds=1(by subscription)[hereinafter CA Paris Dec. 9, 2010]; CA Versailles, 16e ch., Sept. 9, 2010, No. 09/09640.

6 CA Versailles, supra note 5.

7 CA Paris, Jan. 27, 2011, supra note 5; CA Paris, Dec. 9, 2010, supra note 5.

8 CA Paris, Jan. 27, 2011, CA Paris, Dec. 9,2010 (both quoting FAA, supra note 3, Exhibit A, Form of Registered Security, at A-18).

9 FAA, supra note 3, Exhibit A, at A-18–19.

10 CA Versailles, supra note 5.

11 Sabeh el Leil v. France, App. No. 34869/05 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 29, 2011); Cudak v. Lithuania, App. No. 15869/02 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 23, 2010); Kalogeropoulou v. Greece, 2002-X Eur. Ct. H.R. 415; McElhinney v. Ireland, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 37; Fogarty v. United Kingdom, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 157; Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 79. Judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are available online at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int.

12 NML Capital Ltd v Argentina—Conclusions of the Avocat general 21 (Mar. 20, 2013), at http://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/legal-and-regulatory-detail.asp?key=9351 (by subscription) [hereinafter AG Conclusions].

13 Société Eurodifv. Islamic Republic of Iran, Cass. 1e civ., Mar. 14,1984, Bull. civ. I, No. 98; Société Nationale Iranienne du Gaz (NIGC) v. Pipeline Serv., Cass. 1e civ., May 2, 1990, Bull. civ. I, No. 92, p. 69; Mrs. Soliman v. Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Cass. ch. mixte, June 20, 2003, Bull. MIXT, No. 4, p. 9, respectively.

14 AG Conclusions, supra note 12, at 21.

15 It is unclear from the ruling of the Court of Cassation whether it considers the whole 2004 UN Convention or only the principles about immunity from enforcement to reflect customary law. The advocate general, however, tends to refer to the whole Convention. Id. at 24–26.

16 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), paras. 56–57 (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 3, 2012), at http://www.icj-cij.org [hereinafter Germany v. Italy].

17 Case C-154/11, Mahamdia v. People’s Democratic Republic of Alg., Opinion of Attorney General Mengozzi, para. 24 (May 24, 2012) (footnote omitted), at http://curia.europa.eu. But the Court decided, quite to the contrary, that sovereign immunity from jurisdiction is a principle of customary International law. Id., judgment, para. 56 (July 19, 2012).

18 Germany v. Italy, para. 117.

19 See id., para. 115; Sabeh el Leil, supra note 11, para. 18; Cudak, supra note 11, para. 67.

20 see del Picchia, Robert, Rapport fait au nom de la commission des affaires étrangères, de la défense et des forces armées sur le projet de loi autorisant la ratification de la convention des Nations unies sur les immunités juridictionnelles des États et de leurs biens at 19, Rapport du Sénat No. 73 (Oct. 27, 2010), at http://www.senat.fr/rap/l10-073/l10-0731.pdf Google Scholar.

21 AG Conclusions, supra note 12, at 26.

22 Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, with Commentaries at 59, para. 2, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Third Session, [1991] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 2, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1991/Add.1 (Part 2), UN Sales No. E.93.V.9 (Part 2) [hereinafter ILC Commentaries].

23 Mrs. Soliman, supra note 13 (emphasis added).

24 ILC Commentaries, supra note 22, at 59, para. 3.

25 Argentina raised a similar argument in litigation stemming from NML’s attempt to enforce the judgment in Ghana. see Kraska, James, Case Report: The “ARA Libertad” (Argentina v. Ghana), in 107 AJIL 404 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 As it is now (originally draft Article 18, ILC Commentaries, supra note 22, at 58, para. 8).

27 As it is now (emphasis added) (originally draft Article 19, id. at 59, para. 8), noted in AG Conclusions, supra note 12, at 26 & n. 28.

28 See the comment by Gilles Cuniberti on an earlier decision in the case, NML Capital Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., Cass. 1e civ., Sept. 28, 2011, 139 Journal Du Droit International 668, 676, note Cuniberti.

29 For the earlier decision of Sept. 28, 2011, see also Bull. civ. I, No. 153.

30 Republic of Arg. v. NML Capital Ltd., CA Paris, 1e pôle, 1e ch., Oct. 9, 2012, No. 11/15467, at http://www.dalloz.fr/Recherche?famille-id=JURISPRUDENCES&fromFonds=1 (by subscription).