22 U.S.C. § 6083

Proof of ownership of claims to confiscated property

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Evidence of ownership(1) Conclusiveness of certified claims

In any action brought under this subchapter, the court shall accept as conclusive proof of ownership of an interest in property a certification of a claim to ownership of that interest that has been made by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22 U.S.C. 1643 and following).

(2) Claims not certified

If in an action under this subchapter a claim has not been so certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, the court may appoint a special master, including the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, to make determinations regarding the amount and ownership of the claim. Such determinations are only for evidentiary purposes in civil actions brought under this subchapter and do not constitute certifications under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949.

(3) Effect of determinations of foreign or international entities

In determining the amount or ownership of a claim in an action under this subchapter, the court shall not accept as conclusive evidence any findings, orders, judgments, or decrees from administrative agencies or courts of foreign countries or international organizations that declare the value of or invalidate the claim, unless the declaration of value or invalidation was found pursuant to binding international arbitration to which the United States or the claimant submitted the claim.

(b) Omitted(c) Rule of constructionNothing in this chapter or in section 514 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 [22 U.S.C. 1643l], as added by subsection (b), shall be construed—(1) to require or otherwise authorize the claims of Cuban nationals who became United States citizens after their property was confiscated to be included in the claims certified to the Secretary of State by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission for purposes of future negotiation and espousal of claims with a friendly government in Cuba when diplomatic relations are restored; or(2) as superseding, amending, or otherwise altering certifications that have been made under title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 [22 U.S.C. 1643 et seq.] before March 12, 1996.(Pub. L. 104–114, title III, § 303, Mar. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 819.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1), (2) and (c)(2), is act Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, 64 Stat. 12. Title V of the Act is classified generally to subchapter V (§ 1643 et seq.) of chapter 21 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1621 of this title and Tables.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 104–114, Mar. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 785, known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6021 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section is comprised of section 303 of Pub. L. 104–114. Subsec. (b) of section 303 of Pub. L. 104–114 enacted section 1643l of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2020–2024 · leading case: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), 111 F.4th 12 (D.C. Cir. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), 111 F.4th 12 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “And because the Commission determined that Cuba unlawfully took Exxon’s property rights, our colleague reasons, we are bound to treat Exxon’s ownership of those property rights as conclusive of Exxon’s property interests.”

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 119 F.4th 1276 (11th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “” 22 U.S.C. § 6083 (1). As set out earlier, Havana Docks has a claim certified by the Commission.”

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD. (S.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 2× “; see also 22 U.S.C. § 6083 (a)(1) (“In any action brought under this subchapter, the court shall accept as conclusive proof of ownership of an interest in property a certification of a claim to ownership of that interest that has been made by the Foreign Claims Settlement…”

Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2020). “” 22 U.S.C. § 6083 (a)(1). Any other interpretation of the Act would require the Court to ignore the definition of “property,” and the qualifying words “such” and “that” out of the liability imposing language and conclusiveness of certified claims language, respectively—which…”

Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “See 22 U.S.C. §§ 6083 (a)(1), 1622g, 1623(h).”

Havana Docks Corp. v. MSC Cruises SA CO (S.D. Fla. 2022). “See 22 U.S.C. §§ 6083 (a)(1), 1622g, 1623(h).”

Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “See 22 U.S.C. §§ 6083 (a)(1), 1622g, 1623(h).”

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “See 22 U.S.C. §§ 6083 (a)(1), 1622g, 1623(h).”

De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine Ltd (S.D. Fla. 2022). “” 22 U.S.C. § 6083 . A plaintiff may provide proof of ownership through a claim certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”), which the Court must accept as conclusive proof of ownership.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.