international law update Volume 22, April–June 2016
© 2016 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
“e remaining Java Oil factors weigh in favor of
our conclusion that the astreinte was not essentially
penal in nature. Signicantly, the astreinte awarded
was payable directly to de Fontbrune, rather than to
a court or the French state. […]”
“Turning to the nature of the proceedings, the
astreinte here was awarded in the context of a civil
action in order to enforce a civil remedy provided
for in the French Intellectual Property Code. No
criminal or penal proceedings were involved.
And, nally, the award was not a mandatory
ne, sanction or multiplier. Indeed, an astreinte’s
‘eectiveness is ... a function of the choice of the
amount which is freely determined by the judge.’
Gordley & von Mehren, supra, at 532. In fact,
the enforcement judge accepted a reduction of the
astreinte to 2,000,000 euro, which is consistent
with the notion that she retained nal discretion to
determine the amount. In all, the astreinte was not
essentially ‘a punishment of an oense against the
public;’ rather, it ‘aord[ed] a private remedy to [de
Fontbrune,] a person injured by the wrongful act.’
See Huntington, 146 U.S. at 673-74, 683, 13 S.Ct.
224. […]”
e Court held that “the astreinte awarded by
the French courts to de Fontbrune falls within the
Uniform Recognition Act as a judgment that ‘[g]
rants ... a sum of money.’ Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
1715(a)(1). In this case, the astreinte was not a
‘ne or other penalty’ for purposes of the Act, id. §
1715(b)(2), and accordingly the district court erred
in concluding otherwise.”
e Court reversed and remanded district
court’s decision.
citation: De Fontbrune v. Wofsy, 838 F.3d 992 (9th
Cir. 2016).
Sixth Circuit reviews habeas corpus
challenge to extradition by a Balkan
native and naturalized U.S. citizen who
allegedly committed crimes against
ethnic Serbs; Bosnian Court made a
finding of probable cause that satisfies
the requirement of “duly authenticated
copy of the warrant of arrest” under
Extradition Treaty
Azra Bašić, a Balkan native, came to United
States in 1994 as a refugee to escape the Yugoslavian
civil war. She settled in Kentucky and eventually
became a naturalized United States citizen. During
the civil war in Yugoslavia, Bašić was a member
of the Croatian army. She now stands accused
in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia) of crimes
committed against ethnic Serbs. Republic of Srpska
(i.e., the “Serb Republic”), a quasi-independent
administrative entity within Bosnia, has asked the
United States to extradite Bašić so that she can
stand trial.
In 2011, the Department of State led a
Complaint for Extradition. A United States
Magistrate Judge concluded that Bašić was
extraditable under a 1902 extradition treaty between
the United States and the Kingdom of Serbia, and
certied the complaint. See Treaty for the Mutual
Extradition of Fugitives from Justice, U.S.-Serb.,
Oct. 25, 1901, 32 Stat. 1890. Because a direct
appeal is not available in extradition proceedings,
Bašić led a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. e district court denied
the petition. Bašić appealed.
e United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit arms the district court’s judgment
denying Bašić’s habeas corpus petition.
Bašić argued that the Treaty prohibits
extradition of U.S. citizens to Bosnia, because, as
provided by the Treaty, each country has a general
obligation to honor extradition requests, but

To continue reading

Request your trial