Extradition
| Pages | 16-18 |
16 Volume 23, January–March 2017 international law update
© 2017 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
outweigh whatever antitrust enforcement interests
the United States may have in this case as a matter
of law.’ O.N.E. Shipping Ltd., 830 F.2d at 450.
Accordingly, we hold that the district court abused
its discretion by failing to abstain on international
comity grounds from asserting jurisdiction, and
we reverse the district court’s order denying
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
e Court thus concluded that “[a]ccording
appropriate deference to the Ministry’s official
statements to the district court and to this Court
on appeal, we hold that Defendants were required
by Chinese law to set prices and reduce quantities
of vitamin C sold abroad and doing so posed a
true conflict between China’s regulatory scheme
and U.S. antitrust laws such that this conflict in
Defendants’ legal obligations, balanced with other
factors, mandates dismissal of Plaintiffs’ suit on
international comity grounds.”
e Court reversed the district court’s order
denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and
remanded with instructions to dismiss Plaintiffs’
complaint with prejudice.
citation: In Re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837
F.3d 175 (2nd Cir. 2016)
EXTRADITION
Extradition Treaty between the
United States and Belgium; District of
Columbia Circuit affirms order which
denied Extraditee’s motion to dismiss
the indictment
Nizar Trabelsi was a Tunisian national convicted
in Belgium for a variety of crimes, including
attempting to destroy a military base. *1183
On April 7, 2006, while Trabelsi was serving
his sentence in Belgium, a grand jury in the
United States indicted him for various offenses.
e indictment charged Trabelsi with four
Counts: Count 1—conspiracy to kill United States
nationals outside of the United States in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332(b)(2) and 1111(a); Count
2—conspiracy and attempt to use weapons of mass
destruction against nationals of the United States
while such nationals were outside of the United
States, and against property used by the United
States and a department and agency of the United
States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332a and 2;
Count 3—conspiracy to provide material support
and resources to a foreign terrorist organization,
specifically al Qaeda, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2339B; and Court 4—providing material support
and resources to a foreign terrorist organization,
specifically al Qaeda, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
2339B and 2.
e United States requested that Belgium
extradite Trabelsi on April 4, 2008, attaching an
affidavit from the Department of Justice describing
the offenses, and their elements, for which the
United States sought to prosecute him. Trabelsi
challenged the extradition request in Belgium,
arguing that his extradition would violate certain
provisions of the Extradition Treaty. On November
19, 2008, the Court Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of Nivelles held that the United States
arrest warrant was enforceable, except as to the
overt acts labeled numbers 23, 24, 25, and 26 in
the indictment. e Court of Appeals of Brussels
affirmed this decision on February 19, 2009. On
June 24, 2009, the Belgian Court of Cassation
affirmed the Court of Appeals. *1184
e District Court concluded that Trabelsi
had standing to challenge his extradition and that
it had jurisdiction to review his extradition. Using
the analysis articulated in Blockburger, 284 U.S.
299, 52 S.Ct. 180, the District Court determined
that Trabelsi was not charged with the same
offenses in the indictment for which he was tried
and convicted in Belgium. By application, Trabelsi
appealed the Minister’s decision to the Belgian
Council of State, which also concluded that the
United States offenses are different and that "’overt
acts’ constitute elements to determine whether
[Trabelsi] is guilty or not guilty,” and rejected
his application on September 23, 2013. Belgium
extradited Trabelsi to the United States on October
3, 2013. He was arraigned the same day.
On September 15, 2014, Trabelsi moved to
dismiss the indictment for violating the Extradition
To continue reading
Request your trial