一家名為 Havana Docks（哈瓦那碼頭）的美國公司在古巴革命前擁有經營哈瓦那港的特許經營權，1960年10月，菲德爾·卡斯特羅終止了特許經營權，和雪茄行業的很多企業一樣，這家公司被古巴國有化。

2019年，這家公司起訴了美國的四家郵輪公司：嘉年華號、挪威號、地中海郵輪、皇家加勒比號。這四家郵輪公司從事商業觀光活動，運輸了幾十萬游客前往哈瓦那。Havana Docks依據1996年通過的一份名為古巴自由與民主團結法案（ Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity ）中的第三部分，規定：1959年1月1日或之后被古巴政府征收的運輸利益，應由承接這種利益的美國國民賠償經濟損失。由于這個條款可能會引發幾百起針對美國公司或者外資公司的訴訟，并且涉及和古巴有正常經貿往來的美國盟國，所以二十多年來歷任美國總統都放棄實施這部分條款。2019年，時任美國總統的特朗普決定實施第三部分條款， Havana Docks得以向幾家郵輪公司提起訴訟，尋找經濟賠償。

在郵輪公司的辯護中，他們引用了1996年《自由法案》中的一項豁免，該法案允許在“合法前往古巴”時使用運輸設施和工具。根據他們向法庭提供的材料，郵輪公司前往古巴的旅行構成“合法旅行”，在奧巴馬政府期間，他們已經明確獲得美國政府的許可、授權和鼓勵，這種商業航線是雙邊關系正常化的一部分。

但是貝絲·布魯姆（Beth Bloom）法官駁回了這些觀點，裁定郵輪公司從事了禁運限制法令所規定的“不允許的旅行和旅游活動”。這些活動包括參觀雪茄吧、朗姆酒酒吧 、參觀海明威故居（ Ernest Hemingway’s home）、乘坐老爺車觀光哈瓦那、參觀貝拉斯藝術（ Bellas Artes ）博物館、游覽哈瓦那歷史悠久的夜總會熱帶酒店（The Tropicana Cabaret）。

在長達168頁的裁決書里，布魯姆法官寫道：限制的旅行活動包括參觀地標、觀看演出、喝朗姆酒、抽古巴雪茄、購買紀念品、在天然水域游泳等。

如果雙方不能達成和解，法庭的陪審團將在5月份聽取有關此案的證據，并確定郵輪公司為古巴的商業旅游應該支付的賠償金。

參考文章：

A federal judge in Miami this week ruled that four major cruise lines are liable for using port facilities that were expropriated after the Cuban revolution. In her 168-page ruling, Judge Beth Bloom wrote that the cruise ship companies—Carnival, Norwegian, MSC Cruises and Royal Caribbean—had engaged in “trafficking activities” by porting in Havana and bringing hundreds of thousands of passengers to tour the city.??

“By using the [Havana] Terminal and one of its piers in various ways, Carnival, MSC SA, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian committed trafficking acts,” U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom concluded, according to the Miami Herald.

The ruling sets the stage for the cruise lines to potentially pay millions of dollars in restitution to a U.S. company called Havana Docks, which owned the concession to operate the port of Havana at the time of the Cuban revolution. In October 1960, Fidel Castro terminated the concession, and nationalized the holdings of the company, making them property of the state. The same thing was done to Cuba’s cigar industry.?

In 2019, Havana Docks sued the four cruise lines, using “Title III,” a controversial clause of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act. Passed in 1996. the law states that “any person that . . . traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property for money damages.” Since the clause threatened to unleash hundreds of lawsuits against both U.S. and foreign companies, offending allies who have normal economic relations with Cuba, for more than 20 years U.S. presidents waived implementation of that section of the Libertad Act. In 2019, however, President Trump decided to implement the Title III provision, allowing the suit by Havana Docks seeking damages to be filed.

In their defense, the cruise companies cited an exemption in the 1996 Libertad Act that allows “transactions and uses of property” in the use of “lawful travel to Cuba.” Their tours to Cuba, according to court submissions, constituted “lawful travel” because they had been explicitly “licensed, authorized and encouraged by the U.S. government” during the Obama administration—and even the Trump administration until 2019—as part of the normalization of bilateral relations.?

But Judge Bloom rejected those arguments, ruling that the cruise lines had engaged in “impermissible travel” and “tourist activities” prohibited by embargo restrictions. Among the activities she cited that did not meet the criteria for lawful travel were excursions to cigar and rum bars, a trip to Ernest Hemingway’s home, the “Explore Havana by American Classic Car” tours, visits to the popular museum of Bellas Artes and evenings at Havana’s historic nightclub, The Tropicana Cabaret.

“[It] is a stretch of the people-to-people travel regulation,” Judge Bloom wrote in her ruling, “to encompass tourist activities: visiting landmarks, watching shows, drinking rum, smoking Cuban cigars, buying souvenirs, and swimming in natural pools.”

Unless a settlement takes place, a Miami jury will hear evidence in the case in May, and determine the level of compensation the companies must pay for facilitating travel to Cuba.?