Jurisprudencia (SCOTUS) - Inmunidad de jurisdicción y de ejecución de un Estado extranjero

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12–842, Argued April 21, 2014, Decided June 16, 2014 [Text]:

After petitioner, Republic of Argentina, defaulted on its external debt, respondent, NML Capital, Ltd. (NML), one of Argentina’s bondholders, prevailed in 11 debt-collection actions that it brought against Argentina in the Southern District of New York. In aid of executing the judgments, NML sought discovery of Argentina’s property, serving subpoenas on two nonparty banks for records relating to Argentina’sglobal financial transactions. The District Court granted NML’s motions to compel compliance. The Second Circuit affirmed, rejecting Argentina’s argument that the District Court’s order transgressed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or Act).

No provision in the FSIA immunizes a foreign-sovereign judgment debtor from postjudgment discovery of information concerning its extraterritorial assets.

(a) This Court assumes without deciding that, in the ordinary case, a district court would have the discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) to permit discovery of third-party informationbearing on a judgment debtor’s extraterritorial assets.

(b) The FSIA replaced an executive-driven, factor-intensive, looselycommon-law-based immunity regime with “a comprehensive framework for resolving any claim of sovereign immunity.” Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U. S. 677, 699. Henceforth, any sort of immunity defense made by a foreign sovereign in an American court must stand or fall on the Act’s text. The Act confers on foreign states two kinds of immunity. The first, jurisdictional immunity (28 U. S. C. §1604), was waived here. The second, execution immunity,generally shields “property in the United States of a foreign state”from attachment, arrest, and execution. §§1609, 1610. See also §1611(a), (b)(1), (b)(2). The Act has no third provision forbidding or limiting discovery in aid of execution of a foreign-sovereign judgment debtor’s assets. Far from containing the “plain statement” necessaryto preclude application of federal discovery rules, Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 482 U. S. 522, 539, the Act says not a word aboutpostjudgment discovery in aid of execution.

Argentina’s arguments are unavailing. Even if Argentina were correct that §1609 execution immunity implies coextensive discoveryin-aid-of-execution immunity, the latter would not shield from discovery a foreign sovereign’s extraterritorial assets, since the text of §1609 immunizes only foreign-state property “in the United States.”The prospect that NML’s general request for information about Argentina’s worldwide assets may turn up information about property that Argentina regards as immune does not mean that NML cannotpursue discovery of it.

Agradezco la información a Julio V. González García (Universidad Complutense de Madrid).