ECtHR when assessing the adequacy of the duration of proceedings, these criteria being the
importance of the proceedings for the complaining party, the complexity of the case, the
84
The same
conduct of the complaining party, and the handling by the relevant authorities.
applies mutatis mutandis to the aspect of due process of law, where the State Court demands
that as a matter of principle, the parties must be notified of every single written submission
from a participant in the proceedings, no matter whether or not the court considers the
submission to be relevant for the proceedings.”
As another example, one might mention that in its interpretation of the prohibition of "ne bis
in idem” pursuant to Art. 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR, the State Court used the
86 . . . . 87
"°° as orientation for its own decision." The
jurisprudence of the ECtHR in "Müller v. Austria
State Court also considers the jurisprudence of the ECtHR in the application of Art. 8 ECHR
in the field of migration law?? or family law.”
6. Are there any examples of divergences in decisions taken by the constitutional court
and the European courts of justice?
No substantial divergences weakening the protection of fundamental rights could be found.
However, sometimes there is a dialogue between various court levels, as will be illustrated in
the examples below:
Application of the favourability principle
By applying the favourability principle laid down in Art. 53 ECHR, the total standard of
protection is increased where a national constitutional court applies stricter standards than the
ECHR or the ECtHR.
In the above-mentioned judgment StGH 2012/198 (see above under 2.a), the State Court
reviewed the challenged rule not just on the basis of the practice of the ECtHR on Art. 6
ECHR and the demanded cognisance and power of review but also on the basis of the right of
?! Cf. SGH 2012/24, cons. 4.1.
95 Cf. StGH 2012/33, cons. 4.1 with reference to StGH 2003/90, cons. 2.3 und Hugo Vogt, Anspruch auf
rechtliches Gehér, in: Kley/Vallender (ed.), Grundrechtspraxis in Liechtenstein, LPS 52 (2012), p. 583 et seq.
?6 ECtHR, 18 September 2008, no. 28034/04.
87 StGH 2012/100, www.gerichtsentscheide.li, cons. 4.1.
85 Cf. StGH 2012/190, cons. 3.1; StGH 2012/176, www.gerichtsentscheide.li, cons. 3.3 to 4.2.
9? Cf. StGH 2012/163, www.gerichtsentscheide.li, cons. 3.2 to 3.4 with reference to "Sporer v. Austria"
Application no. 35637/03 and "Zaunegger vs. Germany", Application no. 22028/04.
