Case of the Day: Howe v. Romarm

WASR-10
The WASR-10. Credit: Asinn11.

The case of the day is Howe v. Romarm S.A. (D. Vt. 2017). The plaintiffs were victims of a 2010 shooting in Washington, or in one case, the representative of the estate of a victim. One of the victims was killed, the other two were injured. The gun allegedly used in the shooting was a WASR-10 semi-automatic, manufactured by Romarm. Romarm is an instrumentality of the Romanian government. The plaintiff sued Romarm under the District of Columbia Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act. Romarm moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the FSIA.

(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Howe v. Romarm

Case of the Day: In re Frau R

The case of the day, courtesy of Peter Bert of Taylor Wessing, is In re Frau R (German Fed. Constitutional Ct. 2015). Yes, I know that’s not the proper form for citing German cases, but it will have to do. Frau R., a Romanian national, sued a Romanian widow for a share of her dead husband’s estate on the grounds that the widow and her husband had adopted her. The widow denied the adoption, and so Frau R. sought recognition, in Germany, of the Romanian adoption. The lower court that heard the case failed to request the record of the adoption from the Romanian court under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, the EU regulation on judicial assistance, even though Frau R. had presented a letter from the Romanian authorities indicating that they would be receptive to a request from the German court. On appeal, the Federal Constitutional Court held that the lower court had violated Frau R.’s constitutional right to effective judicial protection.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: In re Frau R

Case of the Day: Micula v. Government of Romania

The case of the day is Micula v. Government of Romania (D.D.C. 2015). Viorel Micula alleged that he had made investments in Romania in reliance on certain incentives offered by the Romanian government. He claimed that Romania later revoked the incentives, causing him to suffer a loss, and that Romania had acted in violation of its bilateral investment treaty with Sweden. Micula demanded an ICSID arbitration, which resulted in an award in his favor (and in favor of several other investors) of more than $116 million.

Romania asked ICSID to annul the award, and at Romania’s request, ICSID’s secretary-general granted an initial stay of enforcement of the award. Shortly thereafter, Micula brought a petition in Washington under 22 U.S.C. § 1605a seeking ex parte confirmation of the award. (Ex parte confirmation is a well-established procedure in the SDNY; I discussed the issue in a post on Mobil Cerro Negro v. Venezuela). ICSID later constituted an ad hoc committee to consider whether the award should be stayed pending a decision on annulment. The committee agreed to a further stay, but only if Romania gave a written assurance that it would pay the award in full if annulment were denied. Romania failed to give the written assurance, and the committee revoked the initial stay.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Micula v. Government of Romania