Volltext: Rapport national [Englisch]

complaint (Art. 43 LV). The StGH noted with reference to earlier practice” that both Art. 43 
LV and Art. 6 ECHR required full power of review of the courts both as a factual and a legal 
instance”! Despite this obvious convergence of the substantive content of the right of 
complaint pursuant to Art. 43 LV with Art. 6 ECHR, the former provides the more extensive 
claim, since it is not limited to is not limited to "civil rights and obligations” and "criminal 
charges” in terms of Art. 6 (1) ECHR. 
Confiscatory measures as punishment? 
Assessing the question whether a forfeiture rule pursuant to § 20b (2) Strafgesetzbuch (StGB, 
Penal Code) qualifies as a sentencing rule and therefore makes the fundamental right "nulla 
poene sine lege" (Art. 7 (1) ECHR) applicable, the State Court applied the criteria developed 
by the ECtHR and came to a different result than the latter concerning the UK forfeiture 
22. the State Court 
clauses that applied in the leading case Welch v. United Kingdom 
considered this guarantee of the ECHR not to apply. The State Court considered the pivotal 
difference to lie in the fact that in the UK forfeiture proceedings, the court had discretion in 
assessing the amount subject to forfeiture depending on the type and extent of the defendant's 
fault, and that the court had the option of imposing imprisonment as an alternative where the 
person obliged to pay refused to do so.” The correctness of this decision, which deviated 
from the original practice of the ECtHR, was then confirmed by the ECtHR in the decision 
. . 4 
"Dassa v. Liechtenstein".? 
Dialogue EFTA Court / State Court in the question of security deposits for legal costs 
A dialogue of jurisprudence also took place between the State Court and the EFTA Court in a 
case that was about the payment of a security deposit for legal costs pursuant to $ 57 of the 
Liechtenstein Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO, Code of Civil Procedure) to be paid by plaintiffs 
with a place of residence abroad. 
9? StGH 2010/145, cons. 2.2; StGH 2009/93, www.gerichtsentscheide.li, cons. 7.1; see also Tobias Michael Wille, 
Beschwerderecht, in: Andreas Kley/Klaus A. Vallender (ed.), Grundrechtspraxis in Liechtenstein, LPS 52 (2012), 
p. 518 et seq. with references to other decisions. 
?! StGH 2012/198, cons. 3.1. 
?? ECtHR 09.02.1995, Application no. 17440/90; cf. also Jochen Abr. Frowein/Wolfgang Peukert, EMRK- 
Kommentar, 2nd ed. (1995), p. 325 margin no. 4. 
93 StGH 2003/44, www.stgh.li. 
?! ECtHR of 10 Jul 2007, Application no. 696/05; cf. in this context also StGH 2012/126, 
www.gerichtsentscheide.li, cons. 2.3.


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.