asserting that Liechtenstein did not appreciate the way Germany had approached the tax
affair, there were equally clear words on the German side (e.g. SPD chairman Kurt Beck, who
found the "Liechtenstein statements simply inappropriate" and said that Liechtenstein should
behave the way that was expected of civilized States, quoted by Reuters, Dow Jones and dpa
on 19.2.2008). Die Welt described this approach on 21.2. with the headline "Diplomacy with
a hammer". Afterwards, both Federal Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Hasler made a
distinction between the otherwise good relations between the two countries and the current
dispute that had to be resolved.
Issue: "Legality of data procurement"
Already a few days after the beginning of the "tax affair", FAZ wrote: "Such a production is
without precedent; this is not a triumph, but rather a defeat for the rule of law. [...] Should the
German State be able to enforce its tax claims by illegal means? What signal does this
questionable behavior by the State send, which 1s even being used by politicians to appeal to
morality and decency and to remind managers of their function as role models?" (FAZ,
22.2.2008, "State, tax, and morality", 13).
Under the headline "Germany has a spy" (p. 34) on 21.2.2008, Stern dedicated a major article
to the question of information procurement.
In his throne speech on the occasion of the opening of Parliament on 21.2.2008, Hereditary
Prince Alois discussed the protection of privacy in detail. However, this was not reported to
the same extent in the German media as his speech at the press conference two days earlier,
on 19.2.: "The protection of privacy and property should be strengthened at the same time that
mutual legal assistance 1s optimized. In particular at a time when other States are interfering
more and more heavily with the privacy of their citizens, and even go so far as to pay millions
for stolen data, the need of citizens for strong protection of their privacy 1s great."
Academics were called upon to discuss the lawfulness of the acquisition of stolen data from a
Liechtenstein bank and the utilization thereof by German authorities, and they offered many
at times divergent comments on these questions: "The relevant provisions stipulate that the
BND can only transmit information to public prosecutors, the police and Military Intelligence
if very grave crimes have been committed." (Jürgen Wessing, lecturer in tax law, University
of Düsseldorf, Handelsblatt, 19.2.2008, 2) versus "Pursuant to the tax code, the BND staff
even had an obligation to forward the information they obtained within the framework of their
general execution of duties." (Ulrich Sieber, German tax law expert, Max-Planck Institute in
Freiburg, Handelsblatt, 21.2.2008, 3) or "The State may not use illegally obtained
information. That would be as 1f a surgeon were to operate with dirty instruments." (Jürgen
Wessing, lecturer in tax law, University of Düsseldorf, FAZ, 22.2.2008, 14).
Issue: "Bank client confidentiality"
"Bank client confidentiality, as regulated by law in Switzerland and Liechtenstein and
protected by criminal penalties, is not profit-maximizing tomfoolery, but rather the expression
of a free and liberal philosophy of the State that values the individual more highly than the
State, voluntariness more highly than coercion, and differences with respect to ideas,
temperament, capacities, predilections, circumstances of life, but also income and wealth
more highly than uniformity," the NZZ summarized on 1/2.3.2008 (p. 23) in hits article "Bank
secrecy 1s not tomfoolery".
61