FSIA Precludes Suit Against Hungary for Property Confiscated from Its Jewish Population In Holocaust

In Simon v. Republic of Hungary, (DC Cir., Aug. 8, 2023), in a case on remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the government of Hungary may not be sued in United States Courts for taking of property from its own nationals. The court said in part:

In 1944, as World War II neared its end, the Hungarian government implemented an accelerated campaign to exterminate its remaining Jewish population. Within a matter of months, the government systematically executed over half a million Jews—roughly two-thirds of the Jewish population in Hungary at the war’s outset. This state-perpetrated genocidal campaign ranks among the greatest crimes in human history.

The questions raised by these appeals bear on whether survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust may hale the Hungarian government and its instrumentalities into United States courts to answer for a subset of the wrongs they committed—namely, their confiscation of property from victims of the Holocaust. The plaintiffs invoke the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception as a means to pierce the Hungarian state’s sovereign immunity and assert jurisdiction in federal district court. Defendants object that the exception is inapplicable....

Cognizant of the Supreme Court’s recent holding that “a country’s alleged taking of property from its own nationals” generally falls outside the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception ..., the plaintiffs in these suits assert they were not Hungarian nationals at the time of the takings at issue. They instead claim that they were either stateless or Czechoslovakian nationals. The district court dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs asserting statelessness but concluded that most of the plaintiffs asserting Czechoslovakian nationality could proceed. 

We largely affirm. Like the district court, we conclude that the plaintiffs claiming statelessness ... have not made out a recognized claim within a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act exception....

We likewise affirm the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims of some of the plaintiffs asserting Czechoslovakian nationality, with a few exceptions....

Judge Randolph dissented as to the plaintiffs claiming Czechoslovakian nationality.

 

Hungarian Parliament Passes Law Banning Schools From Teaching About LGBT Issues

 AP reports that on Tuesday, Hungary's National Assembly adopted legislation (full text of law in Hungarian) that bans school sex education programs, as well as films and ads aimed at minors, from presenting information about non-heterosexual sexual orientation. It also bans presenting information about gender reassignment. The legislation began as a bill to battle pedophilia, but amendments expanded it to include anti-LGBT provisions. Fidesz, the conservative ruling party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, introduced the legislation which passed by a vote of 157-1.  Opposition parties boycotted the voting session of parliament.

European Court Affirms Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts

In Nagy v. Hungary, (ECHR, Sept. 14, 2017), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, by a vote of 10-7, upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts over contractual disputes that are matters of ecclesiastical law.  In the case, a pastor in the Reformed Church of Hungary was suspended, and ultimately removed, from his position through church disciplinary proceedings because of statements he had made in a local newspaper.  He then sued in civil courts for compensation that he says he was owed for the periods prior to his termination.  When lower courts dismissed his claims, he argued that this violated his right under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law in determining his civil rights.  The European Court's majority opinion held in part:

... [A]pplicant’s claim ... concerned an assertion that a pecuniary claim stemming from his ecclesiastical service, governed by ecclesiastical law, was actually to be regarded as falling under the civil law.... Given the overall legal and jurisprudential framework existing in Hungary ..., the domestic courts’ conclusion that the applicant’s pastoral service had been governed by ecclesiastical law and their decision to discontinue the proceedings cannot be deemed arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.... [This] Court cannot but conclude that the applicant had no “right” which could be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. To conclude otherwise would result in the creation by the Court, by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1, of a substantive right which had no legal basis in the respondent State.

Four separate dissenting opinions were also filed. ADF issued a press release regarding the decision.

D.C. Circuit Revives Holocaust Survivors' Expropriation Claims Against Hungary

In Simon v. Republic of Hungary, (DC Cir., Jan. 29, 2015), the C.C. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed 14 Holocaust survivors to move ahead with claims against Hungary and the Hungarian state-owned railroad for property taken by the Nazis during World War II. The court summarized its decision as follows:

The wartime wrongs inflicted upon Hungarian Jews by the Hungarian government are unspeakable and undeniable. The issue raised by this appeal is whether those wrongs are actionable in United States courts.... The district court dismissed the suit, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s treaty exception grants the Hungarian defendants immunity. The court concluded that the 1947 Peace Treaty between the Allied Powers and Hungary set forth an exclusive mechanism for Hungarian Holocaust victims to obtain recovery....

We hold that the peace treaty poses no bar to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. While the treaty secures an obligation by Hungary to provide compensation for property interests confiscated from Hungarian Jews during the War, that obligation is not exclusive of other, extra-treaty means of recovery.... As a result, the FSIA’s treaty exception does not preclude this action.

Plaintiffs, however, still must overcome the FSIA’s default grant of immunity to foreign sovereigns. We hold that the FSIA’s expropriation exception affords plaintiffs a pathway to pursue certain of their claims: those involving the taking of the plaintiffs’ property in the commission of genocide against Hungarian Jews.... We further hold that the plaintiffs’ claims do not constitute nonjusticiable political questions.... We leave for the district court to consider on remand whether, as a matter of international comity, the plaintiffs must first exhaust available remedies in Hungary before proceeding with their claims in United States courts.

Law.com reports on the decision.

European Court Upholds Hungary's Refusal To Award Damages To Dismissed Pastor

Last week in a Chamber Judgment, the European Court of Human Rights held by a 4-3 vote that there had not been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Sec. 6(1), when Hungary refused to adjudicate a dispute between a pastor and his Hungarian Calvinist Church.  At issue were claims by a pastor who had been terminated by the Church for stating in a local newspaper that State subsidies had been paid unlawfully to a Calvinist boarding school.  In Nagy v. Hungary, (ECHR, Dec. 1, 2015), a majority of the court, with fragmented reasoning spanning two opinions, concluded that there had not been a denial of the right to a hearing in the civil courts, particularly when a claim could have been brought in ecclesiastical courts.  Three judges dissented, saying in part:

[I]t is more than doubtful that it would be possible at all to show that (and how) the settlement, by a State court, of the pecuniary dispute between the applicant and the Calvinist Church could pose a “real” and “substantial” risk to that church’s autonomy.

The Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. ADF issued a press release on the decision.

European Court Chamber Decision Says Hungary's Church Law Violates Human Rights Convention

In Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary, (ECHR, April 8, 2014), the European Court of Human Rights, in a 5-2 chamber judgment, held that Hungary's 2011 Church Act violates the European Convention on Human Rights.  This excerpt from a press release by the Court  summarizes the majority decision:

As a result of the new Church Act, the applicant communities had lost their status as churches eligible for privileges, subsidies and donations. While the Hungarian Government argued that the Constitutional Court’s decision on the Act had remedied their grievances, the applicant communities found that they could not regain their former status unimpaired. In the Court’s view, it was important that the applicant communities had been recognised as churches at the time when Hungary adhered to the European Convention on Human Rights, and they had remained so until 2011. The Court recognised the Hungarian Government’s legitimate concern as to problems related to a large number of churches formerly registered in the country, some of which abused State subsidies without conducting any genuine religious activities. However, the Government had not demonstrated that the problem it perceived could not be tackled with less drastic solutions, such as judicial control or the dissolution of churches proven to be of abusive character.

Concerning the possibility open to the applicant communities of re-registration as fully incorporated churches, the Court noted that the decision whether or not to grant recognition lay with Parliament, an eminently political body. The Court considered that a situation in which religious communities were reduced to courting political parties for their favourable votes was irreconcilable with the State’s duty of neutrality in this field.... 

The withdrawal of benefits following the new Church Act in Hungary had only concerned certain denominations, including the applicant communities, as they did not fulfill certain criteria put in place by the legislator, notably as to the minimum membership and the duration of their existence. Referring to a report by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”) on the Church Act, the Court agreed with the report’s finding that it was an excessive requirement for a religious entity to have existed as an association internationally for at least 100 years or in Hungary for at least 20 years.... 

The Court concluded ...  that the measure imposed by the Church Act had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 11 [freedom of assembly and association] read in the light of Article 9 [freedom of thought, conscience and religion].

The decision is not final since the parties may still request review by the Grand Chamber of the Court. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]