Nazi gold-Vatican Bank ruling [9th Circuit] News
Nazi gold-Vatican Bank ruling [9th Circuit]

Emil Alperin et al. v. Vatican Bank, United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, April 19, 2005 [ruling that claims made by Eastern European survivors of the Holocaust against gold and other holdings of the World War II Nazi puppet regime in Croatia that came into the possession of the Vatican Bank should be heard in federal court]. Excerpt:

A group of twenty-four individuals and four organizations (the "Holocaust Survivors") claim that the Vatican Bank, known by its official title Istituto per le Opere di Religione, the Order of Friars Minor and the Croatian Liberation Movement (Hrvatski Oslobodilacki Pokret), profited from the genocidal acts of the Croatian Ustasha political regime (the "Ustasha"), which was supported throughout World War II by Nazi forces. That profit allegedly passed through the Vatican Bank in the form of proceeds from looted assets and slave labor. The Holocaust Survivors brought suit in federal court claiming conversion, unjust enrichment, restitution, the right to an accounting, and human rights violations and violations of international law arising out of the defendants' alleged involvement with the Ustasha during and following World War II.

The Vatican Bank and the Order of Friars Minor moved to dismiss the Holocaust Survivors' complaint on multiple grounds; by agreement of the parties the district court limited its discussion to the issue of whether the Holocaust Survivors' claims should be dismissed under the political question doctrine. The district court reasoned that the political question doctrine bars consideration of the merits of the claims in their entirety. The district court dismissed the action against the Croatian Liberation Movement, which never appeared in the action, on the grounds that the claims were barred by both the political question doctrine and the lack of personal jurisdiction over this defendant. We reverse in part because certain of the Holocaust Survivors' claims—those with respect to lost and looted property (conversion, unjust enrichment, restitution, and an accounting)—are not barred by this doctrine. In contrast, the broad human rights allegations tied to the Vatican Bank's alleged assistance to the war objectives of the Ustasha present nonjusticiable controversies. Like the district court, we hold that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over the Croatian Liberation Movement. Consequently, we see no reason to reach the political question doctrine vis-a-vis this defendant.

Read the full text of the opinion [PDF]. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.