Litigation 2026

LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Moritz Blasy, Nicolai Binkert, Simon Ott and Kathrin Binder, Schurti Partners Attorneys at Law Ltd

14. Outlook 14.1 Proposals for Dispute Resolution Reform The last major reform of the Liechtenstein Civil Pro- cedure Code was completed in 2018. The purpose of the 2018 reform was to simplify and accelerate pro- ceedings. Recently, the government in Liechtenstein was plan- ning to abolish the Supreme Court as highest instance of ordinary jurisdiction. Instead, a High Court ( Ober- gerichtshof ) should have been established as second and highest instance of ordinary jurisdiction in Liech- tenstein. With its long history of success, the Supreme Court preserves the legal unity, legal certainty and legal development of jurisprudence in Liechtenstein and guarantees the rule of law. For this reason, representa- tives from the judiciary and the legal profession have strongly opposed such a judicial reform. Finally, the Landtag has rejected this controversial proposal. Con- sequently, the proven three-court system will remain in place. Instead, the Landtag has agreed to the following reforms, which will take effect on 1 January 2026: • integration of the Administrative Court into the Supreme Court; • full-time judges at the Supreme Court and the Con- stitutional Court; • the possibility of temporary continued work or part-time work for judges and public prosecutors beyond the retirement age; • a qualifying period for District Court judges and public prosecutors; • “judge pools” specialising in specific subject areas at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; and • at the Supreme Court, the number of judges will be reduced from five to three judges per chamber, with at least one full-time judge. 14.2 Growth Areas Over the past year, there has been a notable rise in litigation involving corporates, foundations and trusts. Furthermore, there has been an increase in the num- ber of insolvency-related disputes.

• the challenge must be submitted within four weeks of the date of receipt of the award; and • the Liechtenstein arbitration law only provides one ordinary instance for setting aside the award (that is, the Liechtenstein Court of Appeal). The procedure is public in principle, but the public can be excluded upon request of a party if the party has a legitimate interest. Moreover, any person involved in the proceedings can ban third parties from being granted access to the files. In summary, the distinctive features of the Liechten- stein arbitration law ensure that a swift and confi- dential arbitral proceeding is not thwarted by lengthy and public proceedings before the ordinary courts. As mentioned, the Liechtenstein Court of Appeal ren- ders a final decision against which no further ordinary appeal is admissible. While, in theory, a complaint to the Constitutional Court for a violation of constitutional law is possible, the Constitutional Court has held that arbitral awards are only to a very limited extent bound by constitu- tional norms. In particular, an arbitral award will not be reviewed on the grounds of arbitrariness. Conse- quently, the chances of success with a constitutional complaint are very limited. 13.4 Procedure for Enforcing Domestic and Foreign Arbitration The enforcement of an arbitral award does not require a separate recognition procedure in Liechtenstein, since arbitral awards are deemed to be equal to judg- ments of the ordinary (Liechtenstein) courts. Arbitral awards are, therefore, enforced in the same way as judgments of the ordinary courts, that is, by means of an application for enforcement to the Liechtenstein District Court. The enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Liechten- stein is governed by the provisions of the New York Con- vention. Accordingly, to enforce a foreign arbitral award, the enforcing party must enclose with the application for enforcement the certified original or a duly certified copy of the arbitral award and a certified translation of the arbitral award. Furthermore, the District Court must confirm the enforceability of the arbitral award.

630 CHAMBERS.COM