LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Matthias Niedermüller, Alexander Milionis and Fabian Rischka, Niedermüller Attorneys-at-Law
6. Privileges 6.1 Invoking the Privilege Against Self- Incrimination Right to Silence in Civil Proceedings In general, defendants in civil proceedings are obliged to testify and do not have a right to silence. However, if they refuse to testify or even to appear before court, Liechtenstein law does not provide any direct sanctions or means of enforcement against them (Section 380(3) of the Civil Procedure Code). If the defendant does not appear before court for the first hearing or at a later hearing, the court can hand down a default judgment. In addition, any refusal by a party to give evidence is taken into consideration by the judge within the scope of the free appraisal of evidence. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Criminal Law Liechtenstein criminal procedure law does not provide specific rules on the privilege against self-incrimination in criminal law (nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare). Irrespective of the kind of accusation, a suspect is allowed to remain silent as a fundamental principle in Liechtenstein criminal law. A suspect who invokes the principle against self-incrimination must not fear suffering any disadvantage. 6.2 Undermining the Privilege Over Communications Exempt From Discovery or Disclosure Any kind of communication between clients and their lawyers is privileged in terms of confiden - tiality by law. Liechtenstein civil procedure law does not provide a legal basis for claiming dis - covery of such correspondence. Further, lawyers may refuse to give testimony in civil proceedings and invoke attorney‒client privilege if they are
not be taken by a third person, the court may enforce the decision through threat of penalty, penalty payments, and imprisonment (Section 257 of the Enforcement Act). If the action may also be taken by a third party, it will be taken at the cost of the debtor (Section 256 of the Enforcement Act). 5.2 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Per Liechtenstein enforcement law, the recog - nition and enforcement of foreign public docu - ments such as orders, judgments, and other decisions issued by state and arbitral courts is only permitted under certain conditions (Sections 52 et seq of the Enforcement Act). Accordingly, recognition and enforcement can be based on bilateral or multilateral conventions. Owing to the existence of specific bilateral agreements, court decisions of Austrian and Swiss state courts can be recognised and enforced. Further, based on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforce - ment of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention” ), all arbitral awards falling under this convention can be recognised and enforced. This applies to judgments enforceable under the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958 concerning the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations towards children. However, Liechtenstein is neither a member of the Lugano Convention, the EU enforcement and recognition regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012), or the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judg - ments in Civil and Commercial Matters. As a result, in cases where no direct recognition is possible, a foreign creditor is forced to use a foreign final and binding judgment as a means to obtain a Liechtenstein decision in a simplified proceeding.
261 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook