皇家加勒比、嘉年华、挪威和MSC等主要游轮公司可能因使用美国在哈瓦那建造的港口而被追究财务责任，古巴最高法院周四裁定，该公司于1960年被共产党政府没收。
在一项8比1的裁决中，法官们得出结论，联邦法律允许在古巴革命前建造、运营和临时拥有该港口一部分的美国公司哈瓦那码头公司(Havana Docks Corporation)在联邦法院起诉邮轮公司，要求在几十年后，即2016年至2019年期间，就该港口的商业旅游用途支付数亿美元。
这一裁决是在特朗普政府加大对古巴的压力之际做出的，包括正在进行的石油禁运和一项刑事起诉书前领导人劳尔·卡斯特罗周三被解封。这可能会进一步冷却与这个共产主义国家的商业往来，为针对近年来寻求与台湾建立商业关系的公司的类似索赔打开大门。
该案的核心是1996年的《古巴自由和民主团结法》,在古巴战斗机击落两架由救援兄弟组织运营的非武装塞斯纳飞机后，国会通过了一项法律阻止贩卖革命期间被古巴政府没收的美国财产。
“该法案总体上让那些使用被过去没收的财产的人，对任何拥有该财产所有权的美国国民负责，”大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯代表多数人写道。
2016年，奥巴马政府之后培养新的关系50年来，美国游轮首次开始从佛罗里达航行到哈瓦那。这些停留持续到2019年。
总统唐纳德·特朗普是自该法案通过以来第一位执行法律条款的总统，该条款允许美国实体起诉任何贩卖被古巴政府没收的财产的人。
“[法律]承认古巴政府征用的结果是破坏了原告的财产权益，”托马斯写道然后，它规定了基于原告以前的财产权益从那些后来从事财产交易从而帮助支持古巴共产党政府的人那里获得赔偿的权利。"
在特朗普允许该条款生效后，哈瓦那码头公司在2019年起诉了四家邮轮公司使用他们以前的码头，一家地区法院判给该公司超过4亿美元。然而，美国第11巡回上诉法院推翻了这一决定，认定哈瓦那码头公司对码头的所有权根据其与古巴政府的原始协议将于2004年到期，这意味着邮轮公司侵犯了他们的财产权。
托马斯法官驳回了这一结论，并表示邮轮公司对码头的使用足以确立责任。他说，哈瓦那码头不需要证明码头的使用干涉了他们的财产权。
托马斯写道:“这样一来，被没收的财产就成了禁区，任何使用这些财产的人都要对那些在这些被污染的财产中有利益关系的人负责。”。
索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官和公正布雷特·卡瓦诺(Brett Kavanaugh)发布了一项同意的决定，以推翻多数人对该法规的“无限”解读，从任何使用被没收财产的人那里收回数十亿美元。
“国会不太可能打算让遭受有限损失的人获得无限的恢复。索托马约尔写道，国会对“被没收”财产的定义是，被古巴政府没收的财产“没有被归还，也没有得到充分有效的补偿”。
埃琳娜·卡根法官是唯一的异议者，他的结论是哈瓦那码头公司对这些码头没有权利，因为他们与古巴政府的原始协议将于2004年到期。
“码头不是第三章意义上的‘被古巴政府没收的财产’。为什么?因为码头一直属于古巴政府，而不是哈瓦那码头。哈瓦那码头拥有的只是一项财产权益，允许它在特定时间内使用这些码头，”她写道。
最高法院仍在考虑一个更重要的关于古巴财产利益的案件。在哈瓦那码头案的同一天，埃克森美孚诉Cimex公司考虑古巴所有的公司是否可以免于财产索赔的诉讼。该案的判决预计将在未来几周内做出。
SCOTUS ruling allows lawsuits over property seized by Cuban government
Major cruise lines Royal Caribbean, Carnival, Norwegian, and MSC can be held financially liable for using the American-built port in Havana,Cuba, which was confiscated by the communist government in 1960, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
In a 8-1 decision, the justices concluded that federal law allows the U.S. firm that built, operated, and temporarily owned part of the port before the Cuban Revolution -- Havana Docks Corporation -- to sue the cruise companies in federal court seeking hundreds of millions of dollars over commercial use of the port for tourism decades later, between 2016 and 2019.
The ruling comes as the Trump administration ramps up pressure on Cuba, including an ongoing oil embargo and acriminal indictmentunsealed Wednesday of former leader Raul Castro. It could further chill business dealings with the communist country, opening the door to similar claims against companies that have sought to establish commercial ties with the island in recent years.
The case centered on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996,a law passed by Congress after Cuban fighter jets shot down two unarmed Cessna planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue and aimed todeter trafficking in American property seized by the Cuban Government during the revolution.
"The Act generally makes those who use property tainted by a past confiscation liable to any U.S. national who owns a claim to that property," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.
In 2016, after the Obama administrationfostered new relationswith Cuba, U.S. cruise lines began sailing from Florida to Havana for the first time in 50 years. Those stops continued through 2019.
PresidentDonald Trumpwas the first president since the act was passed to enforce a provision of the law that allowed U.S. entities to sue anyone who trafficked property confiscated by the Cuban government.
"[The law] recognizes that the effect of the Cuban Government's expropriation was the destruction of the plaintiff 's interest in the property," Thomas wrote. "It then provides a right to compensation based on the plaintiff 's former property interest from those who later traffic in the property and thereby help to support the Communist Cuban Government."
After Trump allowed the provision to take effect, Havana Docks had sued four cruise companies in 2019 over their use of their former piers, and a district court awarded the company more than $400 million. However, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision by finding that Havana Dock's claim to the piers would have expired in 2004 under their original agreement with the Cuban government, meaning the cruise lines violated their property rights.
Justice Thomas rejected that conclusion and said that the use of the docks by the cruise lines was enough to establish liability. Havana Docks, he said, need not establish that the use of the docks interfered with their property rights.
"In that way, confiscated property is, as it were, tainted -- off limits -- such that anyone who uses the property can be liable to those who had an interest in the tainted property," Thomas wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, together withJusticeBrett Kavanaugh, issued a concurring decision to push back on the majority's "limitless" reading of the statute to recover billions of dollars from anyone who uses confiscated property.
"It is unlikely that Congress intended for someone who suffered a finite loss to reap infinite recoveries. Congress defined 'confiscated' property to mean property that was seized by the Cuban Government 'without the property having been returned or adequate and effective compensation provided," Sotomayor wrote.
Justice Elena Kagan was the sole dissent, concluding that Havana Docks did not have a right to the piers because their original agreement with the Cuban government would have expired in 2004.
"The docks are not 'property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government' within the meaning of Title III. Why? Because the docks belonged to the Cuban Government -- not Havana Docks -- all along. What Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time," she wrote.
The Supreme Court is still considering a more significant case about property interests in Cuba. Argued the same day as the Havana Docks case,Exxon Mobil v. Corporacion Cimexconsidered whether Cuban-owned companies are immune from a lawsuit over property claims. The decision in that case is expected in the coming weeks.
