Skip to content

What the Swedish Supreme Court said about Foreign States’ immunity from enforcement in Ascom and Others v the Republic of Kazakhstan

Photo by Jon Flobrant / Unsplash

The Swedish Supreme Court held that there was a commercial element to the holding of the property seized by the Swedish Enforcement Authority because it was connected with an investment strategy focused on listed shares with a significantly higher than normal risk tolerance in order to provide a high return, which distinguished it from the normal exercise of the National Bank's monetary policy function and meant that it lacked a clear connection to a purpose of a sufficiency sovereign nature in order to justify immunity from enforcement.

This post is for subscribers only


Already have an account? Log in