In a notice issued by David P. Stewart, Administrator for Iranian Claims, under date of June 24, 1983, the Department of State informed claimants before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal at The Hague of recent developments at the Tribunal with specific regard to settlement of claims. The notice read in part:

On two recent occasions, the Tribunal had refused to certify as Tribunal awards settlements submitted by U.S. claimants and Iran. In one case the amount of the proposed settlement significantly exceeded the amount of the claim. In the other, the settlement was in the full amount of the claim plus interest, but the settlement required that, after the settlement had been paid from the Security Account at the N.V. Settlement Bank of Netherlands, more than half of the amount of the settlement would be paid to Iran for taxes allegedly owed. The U.S. claimant had previously denied that any such taxes were owed. The United States—and, to the best of the Department of State’s knowledge, all U.S. claimants—has consistently denied that Iranian counterclaims for taxes are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Syndicat Unique des Vignerons de l’Aude. 1981 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 363.

Conseil d’Etat (Litigation Section, 2d and 6th Subsections), June 21, 1981.

According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, EEC Council regulations are directly applicable in the courts of the member states, and domestic legislation duplicating or reenacting such regulations are without effect and may be illegal. The instant case presents an interesting application of that rule by the French Conseil d’Etat.

On September 14, 1982, the Department of State submitted proposed legislation (S. 2967) to Congress that would authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to adjudicate “small” claims of U.S. nationals against Iran, i.e., those for less than $250,000, in the event of an agreement between the United States and Iran for an en bloc settlement to cover such claims. The Commission’s adjudications would be made in accordance with the provisions and procedures of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, subject to the provisions of the relevant claims settlement agreements (the Claims Settlement Agreement of the Algiers Accords and any lump sum settlement agreement negotiated with Iran).

In Egle v. Egle, an action for child custody, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 17, 1982 requested that the Legal Adviser of the Department of State file by letter or amicus curiae brief the executive branch’s view as to whether the court retained jurisdiction to consider an application for rehearing of an appeal in which it had affirmed the former District Court for the District of the Canal Zone on March 31, 1982, the last day of that court’s existence.