Micula v. Government of Romania, The
104 F. Supp. 3d 42
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Viorel Micula obtained a $116 million-plus ICSID arbitration Award against Romania and petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to confirm the Award ex parte under 22 U.S.C. § 1650a so it could be enforced as a U.S. judgment.
- Section 1650a implements the ICSID Convention in U.S. law and directs that ICSID awards "shall be enforced and shall be given the same full faith and credit as if the award were a final judgment of a court of general jurisdiction of one of the several States." It is silent on the specific procedure for domestication.
- Micula argued the court should use forum-state procedures (here, D.C. law) permitting ex parte confirmation of foreign judgments, and cited Southern District of New York decisions that confirmed ICSID awards ex parte.
- Romania did not appear formally and had pending ICSID annulment proceedings (a temporary stay was lifted); Romania sent informal communications to the court but was not served under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
- The court examined whether § 1650a permits ex parte confirmation/recognition as a precursor to enforcement and concluded the statute requires a plenary action with service under the FSIA rather than an ex parte summary confirmation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 22 U.S.C. § 1650a permits ex parte confirmation/recognition of an ICSID award as a precursor to enforcement in federal court | Micula: § 1650a is silent on procedure; courts should borrow state recognition procedures (e.g., D.C. Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act) permitting ex parte confirmation | Romania: (implicitly) federal courts must afford process and personal jurisdiction; enforcement requires a plenary action with service under FSIA | Court held § 1650a does not permit ex parte confirmation; award domestication requires a plenary action and proper service under FSIA |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (service of process is fundamental to adjudicative power)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (statutory interpretation starts with text)
- Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (treaty obligations may require implementing legislation)
- Mann v. Castiel, 681 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir.) (federal courts lack personal jurisdiction without proper service)
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Argentine Republic, 893 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Va.) (ICSID awards must be enforced via plenary proceedings in federal court)