## Facts

- Fourteen Jewish Holocaust survivors sued the Republic of Hungary, Hungary’s state-owned railway (MÁV), and an affiliated rail company for wrongs tied to Hungary’s 1944–1945 deportation campaign.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were forced into ghettos, deprived of property, transported by rail to Nazi death camps, and that many were murdered upon arrival.
- They alleged Hungary and MÁV confiscated victims’ personal property and possessions, liquidated the property, and used the proceeds for governmental and commercial operations.
- Plaintiffs brought claims including conversion, unjust enrichment/restitution, false imprisonment, torture, and assault, seeking compensation for property taken during the campaign.
- Plaintiffs invoked jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), alleging a U.S. commercial nexus including MÁV’s ticket-and-reservation presence in the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1947 Peace Treaty between the Allied Powers and Hungary barred the suit by creating an exclusive remedial scheme that triggers the FSIA’s treaty-based immunity provision.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged the FSIA expropriation exception, including (a) “rights in property taken in violation of international law” and (b) the statute’s required commercial-activity connection to the United States.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded.
- The court held the 1947 Peace Treaty did not preclude the lawsuit and did not supply treaty-based immunity under the FSIA.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged facts that, at the pleading stage, could satisfy the FSIA expropriation exception, warranting further proceedings.
- The court left unresolved additional FSIA and related defenses for the district court to address on remand.
- A concurrence agreed with remand but warned about foreign-relations and separation-of-powers concerns in adjudicating such claims against a foreign sovereign.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FSIA, a treaty affects immunity only if it specifically conflicts with jurisdiction otherwise available under the FSIA; an obligation to compensate in a treaty does not bar other remedies absent exclusivity language.
- The FSIA expropriation exception can apply where plaintiffs place “rights in property taken in violation of international law” at issue and satisfy the statute’s U.S. commercial-activity nexus requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3).
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true and may permit jurisdictional development where the complaint plausibly alleges international-law violations tied to genocidal persecution and a qualifying commercial nexus.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that the postwar peace treaty did not foreclose Holocaust-era property claims in U.S. court and that plaintiffs plausibly pleaded jurisdiction under the FSIA expropriation exception, requiring reversal of the jurisdictional dismissal and remand for further proceedings.


Simon v. Republic of Hung., 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016)