Liechtenstein

All civil law actions in Liechtenstein, including commercial claims, are initially brought before the court of first instance, known as the Princely District Court (Fürstliches Landgericht). If a party wishes to appeal a decision of the Princely District Court, the appeal is directed to the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht), which functions as the second-instance court for civil matters. This appeal court is comprised of three senates, each consisting of a chairman, an assessor, and a senior judge. Decisions are made collectively by this panel.

The final court of appeal for ordinary civil and commercial disputes is the Princely Supreme Court (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof), focusing solely on legal or procedural errors, without introducing new evidence. The Supreme Court may only be appealed to if the amount in dispute exceeds CHF 50,000 and the first two instances have not issued a conforming decision.

The Princely Courts in Vaduz have jurisdiction over the entire country, with no separate judicial districts. In addition, the Liechtenstein State Court (Staatsgerichtshof) serves as a constitutional court providing extraordinary remedies, particularly for alleged violations of constitutional or treaty rights by final decisions or orders of public authorities.

This three-tier ordinary court system ensures that commercial disputes are handled efficiently with ample opportunity for appeal within the civil jurisdiction of Liechtenstein.

The main procedural rules governing commercial litigation in Liechtenstein are primarily found in the Liechtenstein Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO)), the Liechtenstein Jurisdiction Act (Jurisdiktionsnorm (JN)) and the Enforcement Act (Exekutionsordnung (EO)). These rules regulate the organisation and jurisdiction of the Princely Courts in handling commercial litigation. In addition, special supervisory procedures play a crucial role in foundation and trust matters in Liechtenstein. These procedures are mainly governed by the Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings (Ausserstreitgesetz (AuStrG)).

Commercial proceedings typically begin by filing a written statement of claim with the court of first instance, the Princely Court of Justice. The court serves the claim on the defendant and orders filing of a statement of defence. In Liechtenstein, the filing of a statement of defence is not a procedural requirement for the continuation of proceedings. If the defendant does not file a defence or does not meet the deadline, there are generally no immediate procedural consequences for the progression of the case. However, this may adversely affect the defendant’s procedural position.  

Overall, the main procedural rules aim for efficient dispute resolution under an inquisitorial system, with formal written pleadings emphasising fact and evidence presentation in a structured manner.

In Liechtenstein it is not mandatory to undertake any formal pre-action procedures to start a trial. However, it is generally recommended and common practice to request the debtor to fulfil their obligations before commencing court proceedings. If the claimant fails to do so, the court may order the claimant to bear the court fees and the defendant’s legal costs if the defendant immediately acknowledges the claim at the first hearing.

There is no pre-action disclosure or discovery, but parties can seek the production of evidence during proceedings under limited conditions. Interim injunctions or evidence gathering (such as witness interrogation) may also be requested prior to filing the substantive claim if there is a risk that evidence might otherwise be lost.

Before initiating proceedings, certain practical considerations need to be addressed. Particular attention should be paid to the limited enforceability of Liechtenstein court judgments abroad and to the requirement that foreign plaintiffs must furnish security for costs (aktorische Kaution) to ensure the defendant’s potential claim for reimbursement of litigation expenses.

The main alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods used to settle large commercial disputes in Liechtenstein are arbitration and mediation, with arbitration being the most prominent.

Arbitration is widely recognised and actively promoted by Liechtenstein’s arbitration framework, including the arbitration law, which entered into force in November 2010 as part of the ZPO (Articles 594–635 ZPO). It is the preferred mechanism for resolving international and domestic commercial disputes due to its flexibility, confidentiality, and efficiency. Liechtenstein courts have limited but important supervisory powers over arbitration, including interim measures and the annulment of arbitral awards if fundamental principles are violated.

Mediation is also available and can be used before or during court proceedings. However, it is less frequently used in commercial disputes compared to arbitration. Mediation in Liechtenstein is non-binding, but encouraged, with judges actively promoting amicable settlements at any stage of litigation.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (AStG) provides for the establishment of officially recognised alternative dispute resolution bodies (Schlichtungsstellen) to facilitate the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes.

Overall, arbitration stands as the principal and most effective ADR method for large commercial disputes, supported by an efficient legal framework and institutional support, while mediation serves as a complementary tool focused on amicable resolution.

On average, court proceedings in Liechtenstein typically take about two to three months to reach the trial stage, from the filing of the claim until the first hearing is held; however, this depends on the individual scope of the case and on the parties involved. In practice, the overall duration of proceedings may vary significantly and cannot be reliably predicted in general terms.

The court controls the timetable and case management, including the scheduling of hearings and evidence-taking, though judges often accommodate party preferences if there is agreement. Deadlines for procedural steps are generally between 14 and 28 days, with court holidays (July 15 to August 25, and December 24 to January 6) affecting timelines. The system focuses on expedited handling and allows parties some procedural control, but ultimate timing depends on the court’s management and complexity of each case.

Under Liechtenstein law, there is no general pre-trial disclosure or discovery obligation requiring parties to disclose documents before the trial. During the trial, disclosure is primarily limited to documents on which a party relies in support of its claims or defences. Parties are not obligated to disclose unhelpful documents.

If a party asserts that a document relevant to its evidence is in the possession of the opposing party, the court may, upon request (Editionsantrag), order the opponent to produce the document by way of a resolution pursuant to § 303 of the ZPO.

Furthermore, a step-by-step claim (Stufenklage) allows the claimant to pursue claims in successive stages, providing a flexible mechanism for asserting complex demands where relevant facts or evidence are uncertain or still emerging.

During trial, the court may order a party to produce specific documents under certain conditions — for example, when the document is in that party’s possession, has been relied upon in the proceedings, or is necessary to establish the legal relationship or underlying facts between the parties. However, refusal to produce documents, even when ordered by the court, does not entail formal sanctions but may influence the court’s assessment of the evidence.

In summary, disclosure obligations in Liechtenstein are limited in scope, focusing primarily on documents that a party actively relies upon in its case, without imposing any general duty to disclose adverse or unrelated materials.

In Liechtenstein, witnesses may be required to attend trial and give oral testimony before the court. The ZPO stipulates that evidence relevant to the case must be presented orally during the hearing; depositions, written statements, and affidavits are generally inadmissible. Witnesses domiciled in Liechtenstein are legally obliged to appear before the court, whereas foreign witnesses may appear voluntarily or be heard through letters rogatory (mutual legal assistance).

During the trial, witnesses testify orally in the judge’s presence, with the judge leading the examination and questioning the witnesses individually and privately. After this, parties are entitled to ask questions, which resembles cross-examination, but it differs from common law jurisdictions as it is controlled by the judge, who prohibits leading, misleading, or inappropriate questions. Witnesses have the right to refuse testimony regarding matters that would expose themselves or close relatives to criminal prosecution or would violate recognised confidentiality duties (such as attorney–client privilege, or bank or fiduciary secrecy).

This structured and judge-led examination process ensures that witnesses contribute to the court’s fact-finding mission while protecting certain privileged information and rights of the witnesses.

Under Liechtenstein law, courts have a certain degree of discretion when issuing costs orders, but this discretion is guided by legal provisions and official tariffs. As a general principle, each party bears its own legal costs unless it is unsuccessful in the proceedings. In such cases, the losing party is obliged to reimburse the successful party for the necessary costs incurred, including court fees and attorney’s fees.

The court’s discretion primarily involves assessing which expenses were necessary in the context of the proceedings. Reimbursable attorney’s fees are not based on the actual fees agreed between lawyer and client but are calculated according to official tariffs set by official regulation. Court fees, which depend on the amount in dispute, are likewise prescribed by law and must be taken into account when issuing a cost order.

If a claim or defence is only partially successful, the court may order that the costs be distributed proportionally or set off against each other. The court may also order one party to bear the entire costs if the other party’s unsuccessful part was minor and did not cause significant additional expenses.

In Liechtenstein, the main types of interim remedies available are governed primarily by the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act. This act provides for two principal forms of interim relief:

• Security for Monetary Claims (Sicherungsbot). This provisional remedy is designed to secure the enforcement of monetary claims. It enables the court to order precautionary measures such as the seizure, safekeeping, or administration of movable assets; prohibitions on the sale or pledging of assets; restrictions directed at third parties; or prohibitions on the transfer or encumbrance of immovable property.
  The applicant must substantiate a specific risk that the debtor might frustrate or endanger the enforcement of the claim — for example, where the debtor has no fixed domicile or residence in Liechtenstein, or is taking steps to abscond or otherwise evade the fulfilment of his or her obligations.
• Security for Non-Monetary Claims (Official Order (Amtsbefehl)). This remedy is used to secure rights or claims other than monetary ones, such as ordering the debtor to refrain from certain actions, establishing a right of retention, or otherwise preventing imminent and irreparable damage.

These interim remedies may be sought before or during court proceedings and are designed to protect the creditor’s position and ensure the effective enforcement of a final judgment. The court generally grants these remedies promptly and requires substantiation of the endangered right or claim.

Liechtenstein’s local courts adopt a supportive and supervisory approach to arbitration, respecting the parties’ autonomy to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than court litigation. The primary arbitration provisions are contained in Articles 594–635 of the ZPO, which governs arbitration proceedings when the seat of arbitration is in Liechtenstein.

This arbitration law is largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, closely following the structure and principles of the UNCITRAL framework. However, there are several notable divergences, such as no distinction between national and international arbitration, a shorter four-week period to challenge an arbitral award (versus three months under UNCITRAL), and the absence of specific conflict-of-law rules leaving the applicable law to the arbitral tribunal’s discretion if the parties do not agree.

Liechtenstein law provides broad procedural flexibility, leaving many procedural aspects to party agreement or arbitrator discretion, subject to mandatory principles such as the parties’ right to equal treatment and the right to be heard. Courts have a limited role mainly in enforcement, granting interim measures, and annulment of awards for serious procedural violations. The supportive framework is complemented by the Liechtenstein Rules of Arbitration issued by the Liechtenstein Chamber of Commerce, emphasising confidentiality, streamlined procedures, and also reasonable costs.

Under Liechtenstein law, arbitrators have the power to grant interim relief. According to § 610 of the ZPO, the arbitral tribunal may, upon application by a party and after hearing the other party, order interim or protective measures it deems appropriate to prevent the enforcement of the claim from being frustrated or impeded, or to avoid irretrievable damage.

These interim measures may include various forms of relief and can be tailored to the specific circumstances of the dispute. However, certain types of interim relief, such as ex parte measures, third-party prohibitions, and coercive enforcement, can exclusively be granted by the ordinary courts, but not by arbitrators. The courts and arbitral tribunals share concurrent authority to grant interim relief, and parties have the freedom to choose which forum to approach.

If the arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted, the ordinary courts have exclusive jurisdiction to grant interim relief. Additionally, where the arbitration agreement or rules apply, parties generally must obtain the arbitral tribunal’s consent before seeking interim relief from the courts. Failure to obtain this consent may result in contractual penalties.

Thus, Liechtenstein law provides for a supportive and case-by-case regime where arbitrators can grant a broad range of interim relief shortly after the tribunal is formed, with supervisory involvement of the courts primarily for urgent or exceptional measures.

An arbitration award rendered on the basis of an arbitration agreement designating any place in Liechtenstein as the seat of arbitration cannot be appealed on the merits. However, it may be challenged by way of an action for setting aside (Aufhebungsklage), which must be filed with the Princely Court of Appeal within four weeks of receipt of the award, pursuant to § 628(4) of the ZPO.

The exhaustive grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are listed in § 628, paragraph 2 of the ZPO and are summarised as follows:

• No valid arbitration agreement exists, or a party was not properly notified of the proceedings or appointment of arbitrators.
• The arbitral tribunal incorrectly accepted or denied jurisdiction, or the dispute exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement.
• A party was prevented from presenting its case due to a procedural violation.
• The tribunal was not constituted or composed in accordance with the parties’ agreement or mandatory provisions.
• The proceedings or the outcome violate the procedural or substantive public policy (ordre public) of Liechtenstein.
• The subject matter is not arbitrable under Liechtenstein law.

Liechtenstein is a party to a number of international conventions and agreements on the enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards. The following international conventions are the most relevant to commercial litigation:

• The Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), 10 June 1958.
• The European Convention on Information on Foreign Law, 7 June 1968.
• The Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Information on Foreign Law, 15 March 1978.
• The European Convention on the Calculation of Time Limits, 16 May 1972.

Liechtenstein has bilateral agreements relating to mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, particularly with Switzerland and Austria.

Liechtenstein is not a party to the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), which provides rules for service of judicial and extrajudicial documents as well as recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Liechtenstein is also not a party to the Brussels (2012) or Lugano (2007) Conventions, which govern enforcement among the EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states.

The enforcement of judgments in Liechtenstein is governed by the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act. In Liechtenstein, both monetary and non-monetary judgments in commercial matters are generally enforceable, provided they are final and binding. This includes, for example, performance judgments (Leistungsurteile) requiring the payment of money, the delivery or return of goods, performance or omission from certain acts. Judgments that create or change legal status (Rechtsgestaltungsurteile) and declaratory judgments (Feststellungsurteile) are not subject to enforcement, as their nature does not require it.

In Liechtenstein, the process for registration of foreign judgments and arbitral awards aims to ensure their enforceability while safeguarding due process and public policy.

Foreign judgments

The registration of a foreign judgment in Liechtenstein begins with the judgment creditor filing an application for registration at the competent court. The application must include the original or a certified copy of the foreign judgment, a certified German translation if the judgment is not in German, proof that the judgment is final and binding in the state of origin, as well as evidence that the debtor was properly served and had an opportunity to be heard. The court then conducts a preliminary review to verify formal criteria such as jurisdiction, finality, reciprocity between states, and the compliance with Liechtenstein ordre public. If these requirements are met, the court issues a summary enforcement order. The debtor may oppose this order within a prescribed period. Should the debtor file an opposition, a full hearing takes place to examine the enforceability of the judgment, without re-examining its merits. If the court confirms the registration, the foreign judgment becomes an enforceable title in Liechtenstein, enabling the creditor to execute against the debtor’s assets.

Foreign arbitral awards

The registration of a foreign arbitral award in Liechtenstein begins with the award creditor submitting the arbitral award to the competent court, usually accompanied by a certified copy of the award and a certified German translation if the award is not in German. Enforcement is generally governed by the New York Convention, to which Liechtenstein is a party. The court then reviews the submission to ensure compliance with formal and substantive requirements under both the New York Convention and Liechtenstein law. This includes verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, that due process was observed, and that enforcement would not violate Liechtenstein ordre public. If no grounds for refusal are found, the court registers the arbitral award and treats it as an enforceable domestic judgment, allowing the creditor to pursue enforcement actions within Liechtenstein.

Once a judgment or arbitral award is registered in Liechtenstein, enforcement can proceed under the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act. The available methods of execution depend on the nature of the claim and the assets targeted.

For Monetary Judgments or Awards:

• Immovable assets. Compulsory creation of a lien (zwangsweise Pfandrechtsbegründung), compulsory sale by public auction (Zwangsversteigerung), or compulsory administration (Zwangsverwaltung).
• Movable assets. Seizure, compulsory sale, valuation and compiling an inventory of assets.
• Receivables and other assets. Compiling an inventory of assets, attachment and transfer.

For Non-Monetary Judgments or Awards:

• The court may order specific performance, injunctions, or other measures compelling or restraining certain actions by the debtor.

Pending enforcement in Liechtenstein, various interim measures are available to safeguard the creditor’s interests and prevent the frustration or obstruction of enforcement:

• Provisional or securing Measures by the Court. The Liechtenstein courts may grant interim relief such as seizure or freezing of assets, prohibiting certain actions by the debtor, or securing claims through liens or other security rights. These measures are intended to preserve the debtor’s assets to ensure that enforcement will be effective once a final decision has been registered.
• Interim Measures by Arbitral Tribunals. Under § 610 of the ZPO, arbitral tribunals may order interim or protective measures against a party, provided the other party is heard. Such measures may include orders tailored to the dispute to prevent irreparable harm or to secure enforcement. However, some special orders (such as ex parte measures or coercive enforcement) must be granted by courts, not arbitral tribunals.
• Security Requirement. The party requesting interim relief may be required to provide security to protect the opposing party against damages if the measure is wrongful or unjustified.

These interim remedies ensure that enforcement is not rendered ineffective by delay or debtor actions and provide a flexible framework to protect rights pending formal enforcement. Moreover, interim measures granted by courts or tribunals are enforceable in the same manner as final judgments, ensuring effective compliance.

Proceeding on the assumptions outlined in the Model Answer, would a court in this jurisdiction recognise and enforce the arbitral award under the New York Convention?

In particular:

• Does the award fall within the scope of Article V(1) of the Convention, or would any of the grounds in Article V(1) justify refusal on the assumed facts?
• Is the subject matter of the dispute capable of settlement by arbitration under domestic law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a)?
• Would recognition or enforcement of the award be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b)?

Response

Since Liechtenstein has acceded to the New York Convention, arbitral awards are mutually recognised and enforced between Liechtenstein and other contracting states. However, due to its reciprocity reservation, the Convention applies only to awards from those states and therefore has no erga omnes effect in Liechtenstein. On the assumptions given, a Liechtenstein court would very likely recognise and enforce the award under the New York Convention, subject only to the ordinary Convention defences, none of which appear to be engaged on the facts given.

Does the award fall within the scope of Article V(1) of the Convention, or would any of the grounds in Article V(1) justify refusal on the assumed facts?

The award should fall within the ordinary scope of Article V(1), since none of the listed refusal grounds appears to justify non-recognition on the assumed facts. Liechtenstein law adopts a pro-enforcement approach and does not permit a review of the merits of the award (révision au fond).

Under Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement may be refused if the party against whom the award is invoked proves that the arbitration agreement is invalid or that a party lacked capacity; however, this ground is not engaged here, as there is no indication of invalidity, and under Liechtenstein law arbitration clauses are valid if they meet the formal requirements and clearly exclude court jurisdiction. A Liechtenstein enforcing court would not refuse enforcement on this basis.

Under Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement may be refused if the award exceeds the scope of the submission to arbitration. That is not the case here. The award remains within the parties’ submission, as it orders payment of the contractual sum and interest without revisiting the underlying merits. While it might be argued that the arbitration effectively seeks to enforce or review a court judgment, that contention is unpersuasive on the assumed facts. The tribunal does not enforce the judgment as such nor act as an appellate body; rather, it gives effect to an independent contractual obligation triggered by non-payment. The distinction between enforcing a judgment and enforcing the contractual consequences of its non-payment is legally significant.

Under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement may be refused if the award has not yet become binding or has been set aside or suspended at the seat; however, on the assumed facts, the award is final and binding and has not been set aside or suspended, so this ground does not apply. Nor is there any indication of procedural unfairness under Article V(1)(b) or improper composition of the tribunal under Article V(1)(d).

The award falls within the scope of Article V(1) of the New York Convention, and none of the grounds for refusal are made out on the assumed facts.

Is the subject matter of the dispute capable of settlement by arbitration under Liechtenstein law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a)?

§ 599 (1) of the ZPO provides that all pecuniary claims capable of being decided by state courts are, in principle, also subject to arbitration. The legislator intended this to apply broadly, so that in cases of uncertainty a claim should generally be regarded as pecuniary. The same provision further extends arbitrability to non-pecuniary claims, provided that the parties are entitled to settle such matters by agreement.

An exception specific to Liechtenstein is set out in § 599(3) ZPO, which excludes arbitration in matters of corporate public supervision. In these cases, the jurisdiction of the state courts remains mandatory. Accordingly, issues such as challenges to resolutions of the foundation council or the dismissal of foundation governing bodies fall within the exclusive competence of the supervisory court.

The present dispute concerns pecuniary claims, namely a contractual payment obligation and interest arising from non-payment, and is therefore arbitrable under Liechtenstein law. The fact that it is triggered by a final court judgment does not alter its nature, as it remains focused on the contractual consequences of non-payment.

Would recognition or enforcement of the award be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b)?

Liechtenstein courts apply the public policy exception very restrictively, and it is reserved for serious violations of the fundamental values of the Liechtenstein legal order as a whole. The fact that the award is economically linked to an earlier court judgment does not, by itself, create an ordre public problem. What matters is that the award is treated as an arbitral determination of a contractual obligation arising on non-payment, not as a disguised attempt to reopen or directly enforce the foreign judgment without meeting Convention requirements.

A public policy objection could arise only if the award had, for example, compelled a result manifestly incompatible with basic procedural fairness, denied the parties equality, or amounted to an obvious abuse of process.

On the assumed facts, recognition or enforcement in Liechtenstein would not be contrary to public policy under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention.