LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Lukas-Florian Gilhofer and Mathias Bitschnau, Ospelt & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd
cedure – is expected to produce the most significant restructuring of Liechtenstein’s sanctions enforcement architecture in over a decade, with material implica - tions for the powers of the FIU and the obligations of reporting entities.
above, although the scope for national review of UN-mandated measures is limited by Liechten - stein’s obligations under the UN Charter. 4.2 Remedies As a preliminary observation, it should be noted that the question of available remedies is largely of hypo - thetical relevance in the Liechtenstein context with respect to purely domestic listings. While Liechten - stein formally publishes its own national sanctions list under the ISG, this list constitutes in practice a verbatim transposition of the EU list, without autono - mous listings or independent screening. Accordingly, the domestic procedure described below is most likely to be invoked not to challenge a Liechtenstein- specific listing, but to seek the non-application of an autonomously adopted EU measure in an individual case – an avenue that is in practice difficult to pursue, as Liechtenstein is unlikely to declare such a measure inapplicable on a unilateral basis. In procedural terms, Article 8a of the International Sanctions Act (ISG) provides that natural and legal persons, groups, companies and organisations may at any time – without being bound by any time limit – submit a reasoned application to the government seeking removal of their name from the annex of an ordinance based on the ISG. The government then examines whether the conditions for the coercive measure continue to be met and issues a reasoned decision in accordance with the provisions of general administrative law. What may be achieved through such a procedure depends on the outcome of that examination. In the most favourable case, a full delisting is granted, with the consequence that all coercive measures – in par - ticular asset freezes, transaction prohibitions and entry bans – cease to apply in their entirety. Alternatively, an application may be made for the coercive measure not to be applied in a specific individual case; this remedy is of particular relevance for indirectly affected parties, such as legal entities in which a listed person holds a beneficial interest and thereby exercises indi - rect control. Insofar as damages are concerned, no such claims against the Liechtenstein state are provided for under
4. Delisting Challenges 4.1 Process
The legal remedies available to sanctioned persons in Liechtenstein vary depending on the source of the measure. • Domestic Liechtenstein measures – while Liechten - stein formally publishes its own national sanctions list under the ISG, this list constitutes in practice a verbatim transposition of the EU list, without autonomous listings or independent screening. Domestic remedies against measures appearing exclusively on the Liechtenstein national list are therefore of limited practical relevance. • EU-level listings (the most practically significant case) – since Liechtenstein adopts EU sanctions autonomously rather than as a matter of bind- ing EU law, a two-track approach is required. At the EU level, an action for annulment may be brought directly before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) – specifically the General Court – challenging the EU listing decision itself. At the national Liechtenstein level, an application may be made to the government under Article 8a ISG, seeking in particular the non-application of the adopted EU measure in the individual case. In practice, this avenue is difficult to pursue, as Liech - tenstein is unlikely to declare an autonomously adopted EU measure inapplicable on a unilateral basis. • UN-level listings – where a person is listed on a UN sanctions list, the available remedy at the interna - tional level depends on the relevant regime. For general UN Security Council sanctions, an applica - tion may be made to the Focal Point for Delisting established by the Security Council. For sanctions imposed in connection with ISIL/Al-Qaeda, the competent authority is the Office of the Ombud - sperson. At the national level, the same three-stage domestic appeal procedure applies as described
196 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook