论文部分内容阅读
2010年1月,两家美国公司向美国纽约南区联邦法院起诉,要求冻结阿根廷央行在纽约联储账户上的储备资产。此案引起了美国司法界对外国央行财产豁免的争论,并受到各国央行的广泛关注。2010年4月,纽约南区联邦法院裁定由于阿根廷央行缺乏独立性,其在纽约联储的资产不能享受主权豁免,并下令予以冻结。被告随即提起上诉。2011年7月5日,美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院推翻了初审判决,撤销了财产冻结令,裁定外国央行资产是否享有主权豁免与央行独立性无关,而取决于相关资产是否以央行名义持有,并用于通常理
In January 2010, two U.S. companies filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York in the United States demanding a freeze on the reserve assets of the Argentine Central Bank's New York Fed account. The case caused controversy over the exemption of foreign central banks by the U.S. judiciary and was widely watched by central banks in various countries. In April 2010, the New York Southern Federal District Court ruled that the assets of the New York Fed would not be able to enjoy sovereign immunity because of the lack of independence of the Argentine Central Bank and ordered a freeze on it. The defendant immediately filed an appeal. On July 5, 2011, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the judgment of the first instance, annulled the property freeze order, and ruled that whether the foreign central bank assets enjoy sovereign immunity has nothing to do with the independence of the central bank. It depends on whether the related assets are held in the name of the central bank , And used in common sense