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

Segedin v. Croatia, Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, June 18, 2026

18 Jun 2026
Ljiljana Segedin v. Republic of Croatia, ICDR
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
Trevor N. McFadden
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
Croatia
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 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.