Helfen statt Blockieren
DEENES
Menu

Articles, Article with practice sheet

Sued in Miami, shielded from Brussels: Title III after the 2026 rulings

· Helfen statt Blockieren editorial team

Anyone working with property that Cuba expropriated after 1959 can be sued in the United States, including European companies. Two Supreme Court rulings made such suits easier in 2026. This article explains what has changed, who sues, and what the EU Blocking Statute protects and what it does not.

5,911claims of US citizens and companies against Cuba officially certifiedForeign Claims Settlement Commission, 1965 to 1972
about 40Title III suits in the first two yearsArnold & Porter, 10 May 2021; Reuters, 23 Jun 2026
8 : 1Supreme Court votes for Havana Docks against four cruise linesSupreme Court, 21 May 2026
6 : 3votes: Cuban state firms enjoy no immunitySupreme Court, Exxon v. CIMEX, 23 Jun 2026

What this is about

After the revolution, the Cuban government expropriated companies, ports, hotels and land in 1959 and 1960, including property of US citizens and companies, without paying compensation. A US government commission examined the claims from 1965 to 1972 and certified 5,911 as valid, with a principal of over 1.8 billion US dollars excluding interest.

The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 gives these claimants an additional remedy in Title III: they may sue in US courts anyone who “traffics” in the expropriated property, that is, uses, buys, sells or profits from it. That can be a hotel operator in Varadero, a shipping line calling at an expropriated port, or a bank financing such business. Because the law also reaches companies from third countries, every US president suspended Title III repeatedly from 1996. The suspension ended on 2 May 2019.

The suits since 2019

There is no official count of the suits. According to the law firm Arnold & Porter, about 40 suits had been filed by May 2021; 17 had ended entirely, 5 by withdrawal and 12 by the court. Reuters also cites about 40 suits from 2019 and 2020 in June 2026; most were dismissed on jurisdictional or procedural grounds. Defendants included European firms, such as the Spanish hotel chain Iberostar, the French drinks group Pernod Ricard, against which the suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the French banks Société Générale and BNP Paribas.

Important for European companies is a November 2022 ruling of the appeals court in Atlanta in Marti v. Iberostar. Iberostar had invoked the EU Blocking Statute, which prohibits compliance with the Helms-Burton Act. The court ruled that the regulation does not spare the company from having to defend itself in the United States.

  1. ExpropriationsThe Cuban government expropriates companies and land, including that of US citizens, without compensation.
  2. Claims certifiedA US commission certifies 5,911 claims.
  3. Helms-Burton ActTitle III creates a right to sue in US courts; every president suspends it until 2019.
  4. EU Blocking Statute 2271/96The EU prohibits compliance with the law and does not recognise judgments under it.
  5. Title III in forceThe suspension ends; about 40 suits follow within two years.
  6. Marti v. IberostarThe appeals court in Atlanta: the Blocking Statute does not spare a Spanish hotel chain from trial.
  7. Havana DocksSupreme Court, 8 to 1: the suit against four cruise lines goes on.
  8. Exxon v. CIMEXSupreme Court, 6 to 3: no immunity for Cuban state firms.
  9. 30 years of the Blocking StatuteAnniversary during the week “Helfen statt Blockieren”.

The two rulings of 2026

Havana Docks, 21 May 2026. Until the expropriation, the Havana Docks Corporation held a concession for docks in the port of Havana. It sued Carnival, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean and MSC, whose ships used the docks during the years of opening. A district court in Miami awarded it more than 400 million US dollars in total, more than 100 million per cruise line. The appeals court reversed: the concession would have expired in 2004 anyway. The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1, opinion by Justice Thomas: the docks themselves had been confiscated, not just the concession; anyone using them to board paying passengers “traffics” within the meaning of the law. The case returns to the appeals court. Further objections of the cruise lines remain open. Justice Sotomayor noted that it is unresolved whether several defendants together may have to pay more than the loss, and whether the exception for transactions incident to lawful travel applies, given that the US government had authorised the cruises at the time. Justice Kagan dissented.

Exxon v. CIMEX, 23 June 2026. Exxon lost oil and gas assets in Cuba in 1959, then valued at 70 million US dollars; with interest the company puts its claim today at over one billion. The defendants are Cuban state enterprises, including CIMEX. An appeals court in Washington had granted them immunity in 2024. The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3, opinion by Justice Kavanaugh: the law abrogates the immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. This case, too, returns for a decision on liability.

Together the rulings mean: “trafficking” is broad, expired rights do not rule out a suit, and Cuban state firms cannot rely on immunity. For any company working in Cuba with state enterprises and on expropriated land, the risk has risen. The amount of possible payments has not been decided.

What the Blocking Statute offers

EU Regulation 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 turns thirty during the week. It gives European companies four tools: anyone whose economic interests are affected by the law must inform the European Commission within 30 days (Article 2). Judgments under Title III are neither recognised nor enforced in the EU (Article 4). Compliance with the law is prohibited unless the Commission authorises it (Article 5). And anyone harmed may claim compensation for all damages including legal costs from the person causing them in the EU, including by seizing their assets in the EU (Article 6). Since the Bank Melli judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 21 December 2021 it is clear that the prohibition of compliance applies but must be applied proportionately.

What the regulation cannot do: prevent a trial in Miami or protect assets in the United States. A US judgment can be enforced wherever the defendant has assets. The tools in detail are explained in “30 years of the Blocking Statute”.

Two sides, both taken seriously

The plaintiffs

Families and firms whose homes, factories, ports and land were expropriated without compensation in 1959 and 1960. Their claims have been officially certified for more than fifty years. Title III gives them a route to court.

The third parties

Companies and travellers who had nothing to do with the expropriation and do business with Cuba lawfully under their own country’s law. For the EU, applying the law to them violates international law; this is why the Blocking Statute was adopted in 1996.

The same applies to Cuba as a whole: the US embargo, of which Title III is part, burdens trade and supply; at the same time Prisoners Defenders counted 1,351 political prisoners under the Cuban leadership (September 2026). Both halves are covered in “Cuba: human rights and political prisoners” and “Cuba 2026 as a case”.

This article is information, not legal advice. It relies on the sources listed; where experts disagree, it names the positions and who holds them. “Helfen statt Blockieren” is non-partisan.

Sources

All online sources accessed on 3 November 2026.

All articles