Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain)
Procedural History:
Action for damages for the expropriation of a corporation.
Overview:
-Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D) on the ground that its nationals as shareholders of the Barcelona Traction Co., incorporated and registered in Canada, had been seriously harmed by actions of Spain (D) resulting in expropriation.
-The Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co. was incorporated and registered in Canada for the purpose of developing and operating electrical power in Spain (D).
-After the Spanish Civil War, the company was declared bankrupt by a Spanish court and its assets were seized.
-After the Canadian interposition ceased, Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D) for what it termed expropriation of the assets of the Traction Co. on the ground that a large majority of the stock of the company was owned by Belgian (P) nationals.
-Spain (D) raised the preliminary objection that Belgium (P) lacked standing to bring suit for damages to a Canadian company.
Issue:
Does the state of the shareholders of a company have a right of diplomatic protection if the state whose responsibility is invoked is not the national state of the company?
Outcome:
No. In order for a state to bring a claim in respect of the breach of an obligation owed to it, it must first establish its right to do so. This right is predicated on a showing that the defendant state has broken an obligation toward the national state in respect of its nationals. In the present case it is therefore essential to establish whether the losses allegedly suffered by Belgian (P) shareholders in Barcelona Traction were the consequence of the violation of obligations of which they are beneficiaries.
-In the present state of the law, the protection of shareholders requires that recourse be had to treaty stipulations or special agreements directly concluded between the private investor and the state in which the investment is placed. Barring such agreements, the obligation owed is to the corporation, and only the state of incorporation has standing to bring an action for violations of such an obligation. Nonetheless, for reasons of equity a theory has been developed to the effect that the state of the shareholders has a right of diplomatic protection when the state whose responsibility is invoked is the national state of the company. This theory, however, is not applicable to the present case, since Spain (D) is not the national state of Barcelona Traction. Barcelona Traction could have approached its national state, Canada, to ask for its diplomatic protection.
-For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that Belgium (P) lacks standing to bring this action.
Rule:
the state of a shareholders corporation has a right of diplomatic protection only when the state whose responsibility is invoked is the national state of the company.
Analysis:
The Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. § 185, states that failure of a state to pay just compensation for the taking of the property of an alien is wrongful under international law, regardless of whether the taking itself is conceived as wrongful. Such a wrongful taking is characterized either as tortious conduct or as unjust enrichment
Procedural History:
Action for damages for the expropriation of a corporation.
Overview:
-Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D) on the ground that its nationals as shareholders of the Barcelona Traction Co., incorporated and registered in Canada, had been seriously harmed by actions of Spain (D) resulting in expropriation.
-The Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co. was incorporated and registered in Canada for the purpose of developing and operating electrical power in Spain (D).
-After the Spanish Civil War, the company was declared bankrupt by a Spanish court and its assets were seized.
-After the Canadian interposition ceased, Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D) for what it termed expropriation of the assets of the Traction Co. on the ground that a large majority of the stock of the company was owned by Belgian (P) nationals.
-Spain (D) raised the preliminary objection that Belgium (P) lacked standing to bring suit for damages to a Canadian company.
Issue:
Does the state of the shareholders of a company have a right of diplomatic protection if the state whose responsibility is invoked is not the national state of the company?
Outcome:
No. In order for a state to bring a claim in respect of the breach of an obligation owed to it, it must first establish its right to do so. This right is predicated on a showing that the defendant state has broken an obligation toward the national state in respect of its nationals. In the present case it is therefore essential to establish whether the losses allegedly suffered by Belgian (P) shareholders in Barcelona Traction were the consequence of the violation of obligations of which they are beneficiaries.
-In the present state of the law, the protection of shareholders requires that recourse be had to treaty stipulations or special agreements directly concluded between the private investor and the state in which the investment is placed. Barring such agreements, the obligation owed is to the corporation, and only the state of incorporation has standing to bring an action for violations of such an obligation. Nonetheless, for reasons of equity a theory has been developed to the effect that the state of the shareholders has a right of diplomatic protection when the state whose responsibility is invoked is the national state of the company. This theory, however, is not applicable to the present case, since Spain (D) is not the national state of Barcelona Traction. Barcelona Traction could have approached its national state, Canada, to ask for its diplomatic protection.
-For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that Belgium (P) lacks standing to bring this action.
Rule:
the state of a shareholders corporation has a right of diplomatic protection only when the state whose responsibility is invoked is the national state of the company.
Analysis:
The Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. § 185, states that failure of a state to pay just compensation for the taking of the property of an alien is wrongful under international law, regardless of whether the taking itself is conceived as wrongful. Such a wrongful taking is characterized either as tortious conduct or as unjust enrichment
No comments:
Post a Comment