LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Moritz Blasy, Nicolai Binkert, Simon Ott and Kathrin Binder, Schurti Partners Attorneys at Law Ltd
3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The treaties concluded with the Republic of Austria and the Swiss Confederation set forth certain condi - tions that must be fulfilled in order for a judgment of the other jurisdiction’s courts to be recognised and enforceable. In particular, under both treaties, recogni - tion and enforcement is only permissible if: • the recognition and enforcement do not violate the public policy of the jurisdiction in which they are sought; • the court that rendered the judgment for which rec - ognition and enforcement are sought had jurisdic - tion according to the rules set forth in the treaties; • the judgment for which recognition and enforce - ment are sought is final and binding; and • in the case of a default judgment, the document instituting the proceedings that led to the default judgment was served on the defendant in a timely manner. An objection to the enforcement of a foreign judgment in Liechtenstein on the grounds that one of the afore - mentioned conditions is not fulfilled is to be raised by the defendant by way of an opposition ( Widerspruch ) against the enforcement order. The opposition is to be made within 14 days of service of the enforcement order on the defendant, and is to be raised with the Liechtenstein District Court, which has to deal with the opposition in an oral hearing. An opposition can be raised in parallel to an appeal against the enforcement order with the Liechtenstein Court of Appeal. 4. Arbitral Awards 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Arbitral awards of arbitral tribunals with their seat in Liechtenstein are deemed by law to have the effect of final and binding judgments of the ordinary Liechten - stein courts and, therefore, are enforceable like judg - ments of the ordinary courts. The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Liech - tenstein is governed by the provisions of the New York
for an enforcement order based on a foreign judgment without first having to apply for the foreign judgment to be formally recognised. The main difference between enforcement on the basis of a domestic judgment and enforcement on the basis of a foreign judgment is that, in the latter case, the Enforcement Act provides for a special opposition procedure ( Widerspruchsverfahren ) in which the debt - or can raise objections specifically (and only) available against the enforcement of foreign judgments, with the following examples: • that the debtor did not have an opportunity to par - ticipate in the foreign proceedings; • that the action that shall be enforced based on the foreign judgment is unlawful as a matter of Liech - tenstein law; that the foreign judgment violates Liechtenstein public policy (ordre public); or • that the conditions set forth in the relevant treaty are not fulfilled. The opposition is to be raised with the Liechtenstein District Court (ie, the court of first instance) and is to be dealt with in an oral hearing. The opposition can be raised in parallel to an appeal against the enforcement order with the Liechtenstein Court of Appeal. 3.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Foreign Judgments In principle, the procedure to enforce a foreign judg - ment is the same as the procedure to enforce a domestic judgment. Therefore, court fees are also the same, ranging between CHF10 and CHF3,400, depending on the amount of the claim to be enforced. However, in practice, the enforcement of a foreign judgment often turns out to be more time-consuming and therefore more expensive (in terms of attorney’s fees) than the enforcement of a domestic judgment because additional challenges specifically available against the enforcement of foreign judgments may be raised by the debtor.
290 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook