Stergiopoulos v. Iran. Order No. 39391/2021. 105 Rivista di diritto internazionale 620 (2022)

In Angela Stergiopoulos v. Iran, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation held that state immunity does not bar exequatur proceedings against a foreign state when those proceedings seek the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judicial decision finding the state responsible for serious breaches of human rights. 1 Order 39391/2021 stems from the mass litigation by victims of the September 11 terrorist attack before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).The Islamic Republic of Iran and a number of its instrumentalities were among the defendants, accused of facilitating the terrorists' travel to the United States and providing them safe haven after the attack. 2After being awarded both compensatory and punitive damages by the SDNY, 3 the plaintiffs sought to recover by seizing Iranian assets in Europe.Courts in Luxembourg and the UK dismissed (or are likely to dismiss) such proceedings on state immunity grounds, 4 in keeping with the approach of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Jurisdictional Immunities. 5 However, the Court in Stergiopoulos found that state immunity must give way in these circumstances.Stergiopoulos confirms the Italian courts' persisting inclination to champion a human rights limitation to state immunity in contrast to mainstream transnational case law.It also reveals several legal and policy risks arising out of that position.Yet the decision should be seen in the context of a new constellation of states prioritizing human rights enforcement over state immunity, including Brazil 6 and, at least in the Court's view, the United States (especially given 1 Stergiopoulos v

Action (physics) · Business · Content (measure theory) · Order (exchange) · Physics · Political science · European and International Law Studies · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Mathematics