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

Komstroy (formerly Energoalians) v. Moldova, Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, March 23, 2023

23 Mar 2023
Komstroy (formerly Energoalians) v. Republic of Moldova, UNCITRAL
View case details
Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED 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
Christopher R. Cooper
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
Moldova, LLC SPS Stileks
Country
United States
Print reporter
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 an Order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the enforcement proceedings between LLC SPS Stileks and the Republic of Moldova. The procedural posture involves the Petitioner's efforts to execute a previously entered judgment against the Respondent sovereign State under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

The principal legal issue addressed was whether the Petitioner satisfied the statutory prerequisites for executing a judgment against a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1610(c). The Court determined that the Respondent had received proper notice of the Court's prior judgment, entered on December 7, 2021. Furthermore, the Court concluded that a reasonable period of time had elapsed since the entry of that judgment, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirements for enforcement.

In its operative directions, the Court granted the Petitioner's Motion for an Order Authorizing Enforcement of Judgment, permitting the Petitioner to enforce the judgment against the Respondent in any manner consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1610 and other applicable law. Additionally, the Court granted the Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories, sustaining only an objection to request for production number 16.