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

Etrak Insaat Taahut ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Libya, Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia

8 Dec 2025
Etrak Insaat Taahut ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Libya, ICC Case No. 22236/ZF/AYZ , ICC Case No. 22236/ZF/AYZ
View case details
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the US 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
Jia M. Cobb
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This Order, issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, addresses the procedural requirements for the enforcement of a judgment against a foreign sovereign under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Court grants a motion filed by the Plaintiff, Etrak İnşaat Taahhüt ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi, seeking authorization to execute its judgment against the Defendant, the State of Libya, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c).

The Court's decision is predicated on two key findings referenced from an accompanying memorandum opinion. First, the Court determined that the specific notice requirements applicable to default judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) are not mandated in the present case. Second, the Court found that a "reasonable period of time has elapsed following the entry of judgment," thereby satisfying the temporal prerequisite for execution established in § 1610(c). Consequently, the Court ordered that the Plaintiff is now permitted to seek attachment or execution against the Defendant's assets, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1610(a)–(b), to satisfy the judgment.