The Embassy's note represents that the funds in this bank account "consist solely of funds maintained on deposit in the United States as dollar reserves of the Republic of France," that "the attached funds are used solely for dollar reserves of the Republic of France deposited in the United States," and that the funds are not "devoted to a commercial or private use." The Department has not received from counsel for plaintiff any information inconsistent with the foregoing representations.

The Department recognizes and allows the immunity of the bank account in question from attachment. The Department would be grateful if you would cause an appropriate suggestion of sovereign immunity to be filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on or before January 18, 1977.

It should be noted that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-583) takes effect on January 19, 1977. As indicated in my letter to you of November 2, 1976 (which has been published at 41 Fed. Reg. 50883), the Department of State will not make any further determinations of sovereign immunity on or after January 19, 1977. The Act requires that, as of that date, all sovereign immunity determinations in the United States will be made by the courts in accordance with P.L. 94–583.

In this regard, it appears that if the issue of immunity from attachment in the above-entitled litigation had been determined on or after January 19, 1977, the outcome would not have been different. By virtue of section 1609 of P.L. 94-583, foreign governments would be entitled to an immunity from attachments levied for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.

A suggestion of immunity was filed by the U.S. Attorney on January 17, 1977, two days prior to the entry into force of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. The court vacated the attachment, and in an opinion dated March 3, 1977, stated:

The State Department has recognized the immunity of the funds in question from attachment and has caused a Suggestion of Immunity to be filed with the Court. This suggestion is binding upon the Court, which has no power to inquire into the validity of the Department's determination. Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30, 34 (1945); Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588-89 (1943); Spacil v. Crowe, 489 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1974); Isbrandtsen Tankers, Inc. v. President of India, 446 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 985 (1971); New York and Cuba Mail S.S. Co. v. Republic of Korea, 132 F. Supp. 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1955).

Even if the new Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, P.L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (Oct. 21, 1976), governed this case, the funds in question would be immune from attachment, since it is undisputed that they are funds of a foreign central bank. 28 U.S.C. 1611 (b) (1). See also 28 U.S.C. 1609, 1610 (d).

Accordingly, the motion to vacate the attachment is granted. Since plaintiff's counsel conceded at argument that the attachment was the only basis for jurisdiction over the defendant, the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is also granted.

257-179 O-79-70

TABLE OF CASES FOR APPENDIX

Aerotrade Inc. v. Republic of Haiti (1976), case no. 88, 1074 Afghanistan. See case no. 14

Airmotive Suppliers Corp. v. Republic of Haiti (1958), case no. 16,

1035

Algeria. See case no. 73

Alora Compania Naviera S.A. v. Embassy of the Philippines (1973), case no. 91, 1021

American Trading and Production Corporation v. Banco de Brasil (1960), case no. 24, 1039

Amkor Corp. v. Bank of Korea (1969), case no. 61, 1061

Anderson v. South African Airways (1955), case no. 9, 1029

Arbitration. See case nos. 45,73

Arcade Bldg. of Savannah v. Republic of Cuba (1961), case no. 26, 1040

Argentina. See case nos. 1, 36, 48

Arias v. SS Fletero and Cia. Argentina de Navegacion Dodero (1952), case no. 1, 1025

Attachment, immunity from. See case nos. 3, 6, 16, 24, 25, 32, 38, 42, 46, 52, 53, 57, 59, 63, 68, 75, 79, 85, 86, 102, 108, 110 Australia. See case no. 87

Administrative proceedings, immunity from. See case nos. 10, 20, 100 Bangladesh, People's Republic of. See case no. 95

Battery Steamship Corp. v. Republic of South Vietnam (1973), case no. 79, 1071

Belgium. See case no. 78

Benton v. Cuban Air Force, F.A.R. (1962), case no. 34, 1045

Bergstresser v. Cuban Air Force, F.A.R. (1961), case no. 31, 1043

Berizzi Bros. Co. v. S.S. Pesaro (1926), 1052

Berlanti Construction Co. v. Republic of Cuba (1962), case no. 29, 1042

Better v. Government of Burundi (1964), case no. 42, 1049

B.N.S. International Sales v. Embassy of United Arab Republic Purchasing Bureau (1965), case no. 50, 1054

Brazil. See case nos. 24, 82

Brown International v. Republic of the Sudan (1967), case no. 53,

1056

Burundi. See case no. 42

Canada. See case nos. 19, 60, 96, 97

Cargo and Tankship Management Corp. v. India Supply Mission (1964), case no. 43, 1050

Caribbean Maritime Company, Ltd. v. Directorate General of Com merce (1968), case no. 65, 1065

Caribbean Mercantile Export Co. v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion (1967), case no. 54, 1057

Carpets by Certified, Inc. v. Permanent Mission of Ghana to the United States (1968), case no. 56, 1058

Central African Republic. See case no. 94

Chad. See case no. 41

Chemical Natural Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela (1964), case no. 40, 1048

China, Republic of. See case nos. 8, 11

Chuba Electric Power Co., Inc., In re (1976), case no. 100, 1077 Citizens Utilities Company v. Compania Servicios Publicos de Nogales, S.A., Comision Federal de Electricidad, and the Republic of Mexico (1975), case no. 106, 1079

City of New Rochelle v. Republic of Ghana (1964), case no. 44, 1050 Cole v. Heidtman (1968), case no. 62, 1062

Compania Espanola v. Navemar (1966), 1051

Counterclaim and cross-complaint, immunity from. See case nos. 8, 11 Court determination of immunity. See case nos. 7, 45A, 50, 88, 101, 106 Cross & Brown Co. v. Republic of Zaire (1976), case no. 105, 1021 Cross-complaint and counterclaim, immunity from. See case nos. 8, 11 Cruz Candelaria v. Air France, Republic of France (1972), case no. 80, 1072

Cuba. See case nos. 3, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 46, 51, 86 Cuba v. Flota Maritima Browning de Cuba S.A. (1966), case no. 38, 1047

Cyprus. See case no. 75

Czechoslovakia. See case nos. 18, 20

Damion v. Gevens and Kingdom of Belgium (1972), case no. 78, 1071 D'Angelo v. Petroleos Mexicanos (1974), case no. 104, 1079

Deep, Deep Ocean Products, Inc. v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Sovrybflot (1973), case no. 85, 1073

Degan v. Olmos (1960), case no. 21, 1037

Diplomatic considerations. See case nos. 32, 41, 69,86

Di Sandolo v. Empresa Nacional Elcano S.A. (1952), case no. 2, 1026 Dixie Paint & Varnish Co. v. Republic of Cuba (1961), case no. 25,

1040

Dominican Republic. See case nos. 12, 37, 54

Dorest v. S.S. Narwik (1965), case no. 47, 1053

Duda v. United States District Court (1965), 1047

Egypt. See case nos. 50, 59,74

Employee claims. See case nos. 4, 107

Execution, immunity from. See case nos. 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 42,51,54, 56, 64, 65,94

Ex Parte Peru (1943), 1018, 1081

Expropriation. See case nos. 25, 32, 33, 40

France. See case nos. 80, 102, 110

Frazier v. Hanover Bank (1953), case no. 5, 1027

Flota Maritima Browning S.A. de Cuba v. Motor Vessel Ciudad de la

Habana (1962), case no. 38, 1047

French v. Banco Nacional de Cuba (1966), case no. 51, 1055
Germany, Federal Republic of. See case nos. 84, 107

Ghana. See case nos. 44, 56

Gittler v. German Information Center, et al. (1976), case no. 107, 1079 Gonzalez v. Industrial Bank of Cuba (1961), case no. 30, 1042

Granados, et al. v. Linea Aeropostal Venezolana, et al. (1973), case no. 92, 1074

Grand Jury Investigation of the Shipping Industry, In re (1960), case no. 22, 1038

Grand jury subpoena, immunity from. See case no. 22

Greece. See case no. 45

Greenspan, et al. v. Crosbie, et al. (1976), case no. 97, 1076

Grofer v. Government of Jamaica (1972), case no. 76, 1021

Guinea. See case no. 58

Haiti. See case nos. 16, 88

Harris & Company Advertising, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba (1961), case no. 28, 1041

Harty v. Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana (1963), case no. 39, 1048

Hassard v. United States of Mexico et al. (1899), 1027

Heads of state, immunity of. See case nos. 49,99

Heaney v. Government of Spain (1971), case no. 72, 1021

Hellenic Lines, Limited v. Embassy of South Vietnam (1967), case no. 52, 1056

Holden v. United States, Commonwealth of Australia, et al. (1973),

case no. 87, 1074

Honduras. See case no. 63

Hungarian People's Republic v. Cecil Associates (1953), case no. 7,

1029

Hungary. See case no. 7

Immunity. See Administrative proceedings, Arbitration, Attachment, Execution, Heads of state, Officials, Suit, and Taxation