Volltext: Rapport national [Englisch]

Under the Liechtenstein laws, such a declaration does not have any additional legal 
implications, such as the assessment of compensation.” It is the opinion of the State Court 
that the system of "just satisfaction" laid down in Art. 41 ECHR is reserved for the ECtHR 
and cannot be applied to the proceedings before the State Court. ^ 
However, the State Court will remit the procedural costs for the complaining party as a 
procedure to "fill a gap". It has also stated that "the state 1s obliged to remedy within the 
limits of its legal options and is shall compensate the disadvantages suffered by the party 
concerned as a result of the overly long duration of the proceedings." ^6 
The State Court has also ruled that inactivity of the State Court itself may infringe the right if 
it has not decided within an unreasonably long period of time. In such a case, the 
fundamental right was infringed not by the challenged decision, and therefore the State Court 
will declare in its judgment that the State Court itself has infringed a fundamental right.” 
Rights of defence: 
Art. 33 (3) LV grants the right of defence to the accused. This right, which is formulated very 
vaguely, is interpreted by the State Court in the light of the more detailed provisions of Art. 6 
ECHR, in particular its para. 3,8 
In its latest practice, the State Court has for example oriented itself at the practice of the 
ECtHR with regard to the providing of an interpreter in criminal proceedings and the 
translation of documents from the court file.” 
The right to legal aid and to a defence counsel appointed by the court in criminal proceedings 
is based on Art. 33 (3) LV, and this claim is assessed in the light of the guarantees of Art. 6 
? However, one might assert official liability pursuant to the provisions of the Act on Official Liability (as to the 
obligation of a Member State to provide damages for violations of the Convention, see: Grabenwarter/Pabel, 
Europáische Menschenrechtskonvention, p. 491 margin no. 181). 
^ Cf. 1997/30, cons. 6 = LES 2002, p. 124 (p. 127 et seq.); cf. also the practice of the ECtHR at Jens Meyer- 
Ladewig, EMRK (2003), p. 286 f. margin no. 13. 
^^ Cf. StGH 2011/32, www.gerichtsentscheide.li, cons. 9. 
^6 StGH 1997/30, cons. 6 = LES 2002, p. 124 (127 et seq.) 
"' StGH 2005/52; StGH 2005/7; StGH 2005/13, www.gerichtsentscheide.li; StGH 2005/43; StGH 2004/58, 
^8 St GH 2010/116; more detailed Tobias Michael Wille, Recht auf wirksame Verteidigung, in: Andreas 
Kley/Klaus Vallender (ed.), Grundrechtspraxis in Liechtenstein, LPS 52 (2012), p. 438 with further references. 
 StGH 2010/116; StGH 2010/161, www.gerichtsentscheide.li.


Sehr geehrte Benutzerin, sehr geehrter Benutzer,

aufgrund der aktuellen Entwicklungen in der Webtechnologie, die im Goobi viewer verwendet wird, unterstützt die Software den von Ihnen verwendeten Browser nicht mehr.

Bitte benutzen Sie einen der folgenden Browser, um diese Seite korrekt darstellen zu können.

Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis.