Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Ljiljana Segedin v. Republic of Croatia, ICDR

New
Short Name:

Segedin v. Croatia

Case Type:
International Investment Agreement (Investor–State)
Country in Which This Occurs:
United States
Seat of Arbitration:
Applicable Treaty:
Croatia-United States BIT (1996)
Applicable Legal Instruments:
Croatia-US BIT (1996)
Economic Sector:
Real Estate Activities

Available documents

5 Jun 2026
Complaint for Recovery
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Complaint for Recovery
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Trevor McFadden
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Croatia
Document Summary
Complaint for Recovery
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a pro se Complaint filed by Ljiljana Segedin against the Republic of Croatia in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff seeks to recover a purported liquidated debt of over $2.2 billion, alleging unlawful expropriation of a U.S.-sourced investment and systematic violations of international law.

Jurisdictional Basis and Allegations

The Plaintiff asserts that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Croatia, a foreign state, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). She argues that Croatia waived its sovereign immunity pursuant to the 1996 U.S.-Croatia Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The Complaint further invokes several statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity under the FSIA, including the expropriation exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3)), the commercial activity exception (§ 1605(a)(2)), and the non-commercial tort exception (§ 1605(a)(5)). The Plaintiff claims standing as a recognized U.S. Co-Investor and surviving business partner of her late husband, a U.S. citizen, whose joint commercial investments were allegedly targeted by the Croatian state.

Substantive Claims

The Complaint articulates three primary counts. Count I alleges unlawful expropriation in violation of international law, asserting that the Plaintiff's assets were seized without public purpose or just compensation through fraudulent in absentia judicial proceedings and the actions of an unlicensed, state-appointed bankruptcy trustee. Count II claims that Croatia engaged in continuous commercial activity by managing and liquidating the Plaintiff's real estate assets, thereby stripping itself of sovereign character. Count III alleges non-commercial tortious acts, framing the state's conduct as a pattern of transnational racketeering under the RICO Act. The predicate acts cited include institutional coercion, arson, physical violence, and intimidation designed to force the abandonment of the investment.

Relief Sought

The Plaintiff requests a judgment for the total claimed debt of $2,222,151,876.24, which she characterizes as conceded due to Croatia's alleged failure to respond to prior notices. In addition to monetary damages, she seeks declaratory relief to invalidate Croatian judicial proceedings against her, punitive damages for malicious conduct, and extensive injunctive relief. The requested injunctions include a permanent anti-suit order to prevent parallel proceedings and a global asset freeze against the Republic of Croatia to secure enforcement of a potential judgment.
5 Jun 2026
Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Foreign Sovereign Immunity
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Foreign Sovereign Immunity
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Trevor N. McFadden
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Croatia
Document Summary
Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Foreign Sovereign Immunity
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a motion filed by a pro se plaintiff, Ljiljana Segedin, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff seeks an order denying the defendant, the Republic of Croatia, any right to foreign sovereign immunity and requests that the court accept the complaint for adjudication on the merits.

Plaintiff's Arguments for Forfeiture of Immunity

The plaintiff contends that Croatia has forfeited its sovereign immunity under multiple exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1605. The motion is predicated on allegations of a "predatory expropriation and commercial liquidation" of the plaintiff's private capital assets and corporate equity portfolio in Croatia, which she claims originated from U.S. sources.

The motion invokes the expropriation exception (§ 1605(a)(3)), alleging that Croatia's forced liquidation of assets through a "fabricated" corporate bankruptcy constitutes a taking of property in violation of international law. It further relies on the commercial activity exception (§ 1605(a)(2)), asserting that Croatia engaged in commercial acts (jure gestionis) by managing and marketing the plaintiff's properties as a private market participant. The plaintiff also pleads the non-commercial tort exception (§ 1605(a)(5)), alleging severe torts, including arson and institutional violence by state agents. Finally, the plaintiff argues that Croatia waived its immunity under § 1605(a)(1) through the dispute resolution provisions of the 1996 U.S.-Croatia Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and by allegedly defaulting in a prior arbitration proceeding initiated before the American Arbitration Association.

Jurisdictional Nexus and Relief Sought

The plaintiff establishes a jurisdictional nexus by claiming that Croatia's conduct forced the liquidation of her U.S.-based assets, causing a direct economic effect in the United States. Asserting a total denial of justice in both Croatian and Austrian courts, the plaintiff characterizes the U.S. court as the "Forum of Last Resort."

The plaintiff requests that the court deny Croatia's sovereign immunity and retain jurisdiction to enter a final judgment for a liquidated debt of $2,222,151,876.24.
16 Jun 2026
Motion (TRO) for Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Motion (TRO) for Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Trevor N. McFadden
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Croatia
Document Summary
Motion (TRO) for Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is an emergency motion filed by the pro se Plaintiff, Ljiljana Segedin, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff seeks a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction against the Defendant, the Republic of Croatia, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1964.

The motion alleges that Croatia's state apparatus is engaged in retaliatory actions following the Plaintiff's initiation of a federal lawsuit and invocation of international arbitration. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that Croatia is exerting "aggressive legal and administrative pressure" on Austrian authorities to compel her "involuntary cross-border extraction and surrender." The Plaintiff asserts that Croatia has manipulated trans-European legal mechanisms by using falsified, obsolete domestic addresses. The relief sought is an immediate cease and desist order to prevent Croatia and its ministries from pursuing her surrender, relocation, or passport cancellation. The Plaintiff also requests the Court to formally transmit any resulting protective order to the relevant Austrian ministries to provide notice of the U.S. court's jurisdiction and protection under principles of international comity.
18 Jun 2026
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Trevor N. McFadden
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Croatia
Document Summary
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This Order was issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denying the Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).

The Court began by noting that a TRO is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" for which the standard is "very high." It recited the four-factor test requiring a party seeking such relief to make a clear showing of: (i) a likelihood of success on the merits; (ii) a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm without the relief; (iii) a balance of equities in its favor; and (iv) that the relief is in the public interest. The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to meet this high standard, concluding that the motion did not meaningfully address any of the four factors. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for a TRO and stated that it would consider the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction in due course.
1 Jul 2026
Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Trevor McFadden
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Croatia
Document Summary
Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background and Ruling

This Memorandum Opinion was issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a pro se action brought by an individual against the Republic of Croatia under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The plaintiff alleged various torts and crimes, including unlawful expropriation, fraud, and false arrest, seeking damages in excess of $2 billion.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Court, acting sua sponte, dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's decision rested on the complaint's non-conformity with Rule 8, which requires a "short and plain statement of the claim," and Rule 10, which mandates numbered paragraphs limited to a single set of circumstances.

The Court found the 47-page complaint to be "rambling, disorganized, and confusing," making it "nearly impossible to discern the essential facts" underlying the claims. It specifically noted the failure to number paragraphs and the inclusion of paragraphs spanning multiple pages and topics. The Court reasoned that these deficiencies deprived the defendant of fair notice and the ability to formulate a responsive pleading. While acknowledging the less stringent standards applied to pro se litigants, the Court emphasized that all parties must adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. Consequently, it also denied as moot the plaintiff's pending Motion to Deny Foreign Sovereign Immunity, Motion to Seal the Case, and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
1 Jul 2026
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Trevor N. McFadden
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Croatia
Document Summary
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is a final, appealable Order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the matter between Ljiljana Segedin and the Republic of Croatia. The Order serves as the dispositive instrument effectuating the reasoning set forth in the Court's concurrent Memorandum Opinion.

In its operative directives, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. Furthermore, the Court systematically denied a series of ancillary and substantive motions filed during the proceedings. Specifically, the Court denied the Motion to Deny Foreign Sovereign Immunity, the Motion to Seal Case, and the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Following these dispositive rulings, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to formally close the case, thereby concluding the proceedings at the district court level while expressly preserving the Plaintiff's right to appeal.