Claimant states that as a result of the taking of his property, he sustained loss in the amount of Egyptian pounds 10,976.499 (U.S. $29,087.73). Claimant states that [the deceased] was naturalized by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on ... 1933, and was issued Certificate No. Claimant states that [the deceased], with his three brothers and sister, became partners and founded in 1952 the... Company (hereinafter designated "the Company") in Egypt. The Egyptian Government in 1963 nationalized the company. The Assessment Committee, pursuant to the Order of the Ministry of Industries, evaluated the net worth of the company at Egyptian pounds 69,412.210 as of August 7, 1963. . . . [Decedent] owned 18.5% of the company, approximately Egyptian pounds 11,916.220. Subsequently, the Egyptian Fiscal Administration authorized the transfer abroad to [the deceased] of Egyptian pounds 10,976.499, but this amount was blocked at the company by the Egyptian authorities. The executrix of the Estate of [the deceased] . . . states that [the deceased] died [in] ... 1973, leaving a will dated . . ., 1970. The will was filed for probate in the Surrogate's Court, Bronx County, New York. Under the will, [the deceased] bequeathed onethird of the estate to his wife . . . and two-thirds of the estate in trust for the benefit of his brothers and sister, with the remainder to be payable to the said brothers and sister on the death of his wife... Under the rule of international law of continuous nationality, to be eligible for compensation, the heirs, legatees and beneficiaries sharing in the estate must qualify as United States citizens. (See 8 Whiteman, Digest of International Law, 1245 (1967); Ralston, Supplement to the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals, Sec. 293a (1936); In the Matter of the Claim of Jerko Bogovich et al., Docket No. Y-1757, Final Decision of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission No. 857, December 8, 1954, certified copy, MS. Department of State.) [His wife] died [in] . . . 1975, leaving, as heirs, her brother, a nephew and a niece who reside in and are citizens of Switzerland. The proceeds of the award which would have been paid to the onethird share of the estate of [his wife] would lapse, since her heirs are not U.S. citizens. The proceeds of the award which would have been paid or are payable to the two-thirds share of the estate of [the deceased] will lapse in part and be payable in part. . . . Of the . . . cestuis-quetrust, only three are United States citizens.. The other three, ... who are not United States citizens, are not entitled to receive or to share in any compensation that may be payable. On the basis of the available record, the Department finds that the amount of £. E. 3,658.833 should be awarded to . . . and . . ., who are U.S. citizens, for distribution under the testamentary and trust. This amount represents 50% of two-thirds of the amount of Egyptian pounds 7,317.66 which would have been payable to the trust consisting of two-thirds shares of [the deceased's] estate. * CERTIFICATION OF LOSS The Department finds, on the basis of evidence of record, that claimant sustained a loss in the amount of Egyptian pounds 3,658.833 (U.S. $9,330.00). Dept. of State File L/C. In Claim No. E8, Decision No. 2, the Department of State construed the provision in the Agreed Minute of the Agreement "concerning the dominant and effective nationality of dual nationals" by examining the claimants' passports used on trips to Egypt, their residence, the location of the schools of their children, and their professional associations. In an addendum to the decision, the Department also determined that the estate of a U.S. citizen claimant who dies subsequent to the acceptance of the Department's Proposed Decision is entitled to compensation and may distribute such compensation according to the terms of the will. Excerpts from the final decision entered by George H. Aldrich, Deputy Legal Adviser, on June 16, 1977, follow: In the course of the negotiations concerning the Agreement, the Egyptian Government contended that [the claimant] and [other claimant] members of his family were Egyptian nationals and, therefore, under Egyptian law were not entitled to compensation. The United States Government contended that the sequestration of the properties in question originally took place in 1961, under which legal title remained in the claimants. The claimants had all acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization by 1962 and 1963. The nationalization of the properties in question did not take place until 1964, after the claimants had become United States nationals. All the claimants had left Egypt in 1956 and 1957 and had arrived in the United States as immigrants, and did not return until 1971 on United States passports. Since 1971 members of the family visited Egypt at various times as tourists. All the claimants resided in the United States and the [family] children were educated in American schools and universities. [One member of the family] is a member of the bar of the District of Columbia. [Another member of the family] taught at Columbia University. The family owns its apartment in New York City. These contacts with the United States established the dominant and effective United States nationality of the claimants even if assuming, in arguendo, that they also retained their Egyptian nationality and were dual nationals. Therefore, claimants were entitled under international law to payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation. It was expressly stated in the Annex to the Agreement that "the Government of the United States recognized and applies the principle of international law concerning the dominant and effective nationality of dual nationals." ADDENDUM After the acceptance of the Department's Proposed Decision on the four claims referred to above, the Department was informed that one of the claimants had died on March 16, 1977, and left a will dated April 5, 1960, which bequeathed her entire estate to her husband, . . ., a United States citizen. [The executor of her estate], who was duly authorized to represent the claimants, stated in his letter of May 31, 1977, that [the husband] intends to renounce the bequest in favor of the other three claimants, . . . who are U.S. citizens. Under the long-established rule of international law of continuous nationality, the Department further finds that the Estate of . . . is entitled to the compensation as previously determined, to be distributed to the intended beneficiaries in accordance with proceedings before the [New York] Surrogate exercising jurisdiction in the probate of the will of [the deceased]. Dept. of State File L/C. For further information concerning the 1976 U.S.-Egyptian Claims Agreement, see the 1976 Digest, Ch. 9, § 3, pp. 446-447. In Claim No. B6, Decision No. 23, the claimant sought compensation in excess of the valuation placed on certain business interests by the Egyptian Government pursuant to a nationalization decree in 1963 on the grounds that this valuation did not include goodwill and "was based principally on book value after accelerated depreciation, rather than at fair market value at the date of nationalization." After determining that losses such as goodwill are generally not allowed under international law, the Department of State found that the claimant had sustained a loss in excess of the official valuation resulting from the nationalization decree of 1963 but less than the amount the claimant sought. Excerpts from the final decision entered by George H. Aldrich, Deputy Legal Adviser, on July 15, 1977, follow: Claimant states that she inherited from her mother . . . 18.45% interest in . . . Company (hereinafter designated "the business"), a weaving factory situated at . . . Egypt. The mother . . . who died on April 20, 1961, had inherited 4 interest of the estate of her husband . . . who owned 73.8% interest in that business. ... Claimant states that she was born in France . . . and has been a national of the United States since she derived United States citizenship [in] ... 1947 through her mother . . Claimant states that as a result of the taking of her properties, she sustained loss in the amount of Egyptian pounds 33,496.375 (U.S. $86,638.38). Claimant asserts that the Egyptian Government, pursuant to Decree Law No. 72 of 1963, promulgated on August 8, 1963, nationalized the business. Article 1 of Decree Law No. 72 provides: The companies and establishments mentioned in the attached schedule are hereby nationalized and their ownership shall be transferred to the State. The administrative Authority charged with the supervision of these companies and establishments are mentioned against each. Article 2 of Decree Law No. 72 provides, inter alia : The shares of the companies as well as the capital of the establishments referred to shall be converted into nominal state bonds for 15 years with an annual interest of 4%. The bonds shall be negotiable on the Stock Exchange. The State may, after ten years, redeem these bonds wholly or partially at a nominal value by drawing lots at an open meeting. In the case of partial redemption, a notice to this effect shall be published in the Official Gazette at least two months before the fixed date ... Decree Law No. 72 further provides for the establishment of Committees consisting of three members to evaluate the shares of companies that were not negotiable on the Egyptian Stock Exchange. Article 3 provides: "The decisions of these committees shall be final and not subject to any form of appeal." The Evaluation Committee in this case determined the value of the business to be Egyptian pounds 63,377.565 (hereinafter denominated the "official valuation"). Claimant objects to the official valuation on the ground that it did not include goodwill, and that the valuation was based principally on book value after accelerated depreciation, rather than at fair market value at the date of nationalization. Claimant asserts that in the view of three persons who were personally familiar with the business and its operations, and who had been retained to make a separate evaluation, the valuation of the business should include good will in the amount of Egyptian pounds 40,000.000, and that "tangible asset values" should be increased. On these criteria, claimant asserts that her claim be valued as follows: Valuation per composite statement VALUE OF BUSINESS Multiply by [claimant's] interest VALUE OF [CLAIMANT'S] INTEREST TOTAL DUE [CLAIMANT] AS OF AUGUST 8, 1963 Under international law, losses of intangible personalty, such as goodwill, are considered speculative and generally not allowed. The Department notes that claimant is asserting an amount of Egyptian pounds 33,496.375. On the basis of the official Egyptian valuation, claimant's share equals Egyptian pounds 11,724.375 (being 18.5% of Egyptian pounds 63,377.565). On the basis of the available record, claimant is entitled to compensation in the amount of Egyptian pounds 22,601.000 or U.S. $57,633. In the Department's opinion, this amount represents adequate and effective compensation. CERTIFICATION OF LOSS The Department finds, on the basis of evidence of record, that claimant sustained a loss in the amount of Egyptian pounds 22,601.000 (U.S. $57,633). Dept. of State File L/C. U.S.-Czechoslovakia On February 23, 1977, Kempton B. Jenkins, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, sent Senator Lawton Chiles a letter responding to a previous letter from Senator Chiles requesting information on behalf of a constituent regarding the status of claims settlement negotiations between the United States and Czechoslovakia. In explaining why the Department of State is "precluded from taking any action to formalize the ad referendum claims settlement agreement" with Czechoslovakia initialed on July 5, 1974, Acting Assistant Secretary Jenkins' letter discussed the Agreement on Reparation from Germany, on the Establishment of an Inter-Allied Reparation Agency, and on the Restitution of Monetary Gold concluded on January 14, 1946 (TIAS 1655; 61 Stat. 3157; 4 Bevans 5; 555 UNTS 69; entered into force for the United States on January 24, 1946), which established the Tripartite Gold Commission. Excerpts from Acting Assistant Secretary Jenkins' letter of February 23, 1977, follow: There is enclosed a memorandum prepared by the Department of State containing detailed information about the status of claims of nationals of the United States against the Government of Czechoslovakia for the taking of property. The gold which is referred to in the memorandum is part of the monetary gold looted from the occupied countries by Nazi forces during World War II. After the war the Tripartite Gold Commission, which is composed of a member from France, the United Kingdom and the United States, was established to take custody of the gold and to determine the portions allocable to each of the occupied countries. Under Part III of the Paris Reparation Agreement of January 24, 1946 (TIAS 1655), the residual amount of gold allocated to Czechoslovakia is 18.4 metric tons. The gold is kept in accounts in banks in the names of the three governments. The three governments must act unanimously in the control and disposition of the gold. Under the agreement, the only disposition that can be made of the gold is to release it to the country to which a portion has been allocated. The Government of the United States has no legal claim to the gold and to vest title in the gold in order to pay outstanding claims of nationals of the United States against the Government of Czechoslovakia would not be consonant with the international obligations of each of the governments under that agreement. The United States Government takes the position that it will not consent to the release of the gold allocated to the Government of Czechoslovakia until the Government of Czechoslovakia makes an acceptable settlement of the claims of United States nationals. The Governments of the United Kingdom and France have advised the Government of the United States that they are prepared to take action to release the gold to the Government of Czechoslovakia when the Government of the United States is prepared to do so. The lawsuit referred to in the memorandum was dismissed by the district court and appealed to the court of appeals, which . . . dismissed such appeal, affirming the decision of the district court. The |