LIECHTENSTEIN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Michael Nueber and Philipp Konzett, Nueber Konzett
In the 2025 version of this guide , we outlined the first proposal for a reform of the Liechtenstein judi- cial system. After heavy criticism and after a broad discussion, the Liechtenstein legislature passed a bill implementing a reform that is widely seen as a good compromise. Proposal to Reform – Or: A Too Bitter Pill to Swallow In February 2023, the Liechtenstein government ini- tiated discussions on reforming the judicial system, leading to an official proposal submitted to the Liech- tenstein parliament. This process continued until the first stage of reading in June 2024. The main focus was the abolition of the three-tier court system and the creating of a special panel for trust law matters. The planned reform has sparked widespread criti- cism, both nationally and internationally, even before its implementation. Lawyers, judges and academics have voiced concerns, particularly regarding the aboli- tion of the Supreme Court, warning that without this independent court, legal certainty may be at risk. Critics were concerned that the new “High Court” ( Obergerichtshof ) would handle both factual and legal reviews, potentially overburdening the court and compromising decision quality. Experts feared that judges will have less time to develop new legal solutions if they must focus on both aspects of cases. The Liechtenstein Bar Association ( Liechtensteinische Rechtsanwaltskammer ) strongly opposed the abolition of the Supreme Court, arguing that it would threaten legal certainty and undermine the country’s economic attractiveness. The Bar Association also criticised this as an untested experiment potentially leading to legal uncertainty, arguing that it may take years for clear and reliable procedures to emerge from this new mod- el. The Bar Association emphasised that a three-tier system is the European standard, and the Supreme Court plays a crucial role ensuring legal certainty and advancing law. Rather than abolishing the Supreme Court, the Bar Association suggested focusing on improving the effi- ciency of the Court of First Instance, where delays are most common. These reforms would modernise the
system without dismantling the well-established legal framework that ensures fairness and legal certainty. Statement and Decisions Regarding the Three-Tier Model For over 200 years, the Supreme Court has been a cornerstone of the judicial system. Unlike other courts that focus on the facts of a case, the Supreme Court handles only legal questions. This three-tier system – Court of First Instance, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court – ensures the careful review of complex legal issues, adhering to European standards and common practices in many countries. Given that Liechtenstein adopts many of its laws from neighbouring Austria and Switzerland, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and adapting these laws to the country’s specific needs. The Supreme Court also develops new legal standards and fills legislative gaps. The discussion on changing the judicial system remained controversial throughout the second read- ing. The main arguments against abandoning the existing model (three-tier model) referred to the fact that the new “High Court” would handle both factual and legal reviews, potentially overburdening the court and compromising decision quality. With the cur- rent proposal, the government has responded to the request of various members of parliament to develop a draft reform based on a three-tier judicial system. Compared to the drafts from the first reading, the abolition of the three-tier model has therefore been renounced. Simultaneously with the decision to maintain the exist- ing model in ordinary courts, it was also decided that the Supreme Court should be professionalised. It was therefore decided that two full-time judges should be appointed. In addition, the Supreme Court will now decide in pan- els of three judges. A reduction from a five-member panel to a three-member panel was considered nec- essary in order to implement (partial) professionalisa- tion – in other words, the partial assignment of full- time judges – while preserving human resources as much as possible.
632 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook