This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of the legal framework and key issues surrounding international arbitration law in Liechtenstein.
This Q&A is part of the global guide to International Arbitration.
For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/practice-areas/international-arbitration-4th-edition/
What legislation applies to arbitration in your country? Are there any mandatory laws?
The provisions on arbitral proceedings are contained in the Eighth Section of the Liechtenstein CCP (§§ 594-635 Liechtenstein CCP) which is itself divided into 10 Titles. The basic mandatory principles of Liechtenstein arbitral proceedings are the equal treatment of the parties, the parties’ right to be heard and the parties’ right to be represented in arbitral proceedings by a person of their own choosing.
Apart from that, the following rules qualify (among several others) as mandatory: (a) the limitations imposed on the arbitrability of disputes, (b) the rules on the form of the arbitration agreement, (c) the rules on application to the ordinary court for the granting of preliminary or interim relief, (d) the rules on the impartiality and independence of arbitrators, (e) the principles of the gathering of evidence and the consideration of evidence, (f) the right of the defendant to reply to the statement of claim, (g) the rules on judicial assistance, (h) the rules on the arbitral award and its effects, (i) the rules governing the closing of the arbitral proceedings and the right to challenge the arbitral award, and (j) the rules on consumer and employee protection.
Is your country a signatory to the New York Convention? Are there any reservations to the general obligations of the Convention?
Yes. Liechtenstein ratified the New York Convention on 7 July 2011. Liechtenstein has entered the reservation that it will only recognise and enforce arbitral awards on the basis of reciprocity, but irrespective of whether the merits of the disputes were of a commercial or non-commercial nature.
What other arbitration-related treaties and conventions is your country a party to?
Yes. Liechtenstein concluded bilateral agreements on the mutual recognition of judgments and arbitral awards with Austria in 1975 and with Switzerland in 1970.
Is the law governing international arbitration in your country based on the UNCITRAL Model Law? Are there significant differences between the two?
The Liechtenstein law on arbitration has been modelled on the basis of the Austrian law on arbitration which is in turn based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. As a consequence, the first eight out of the 10 Titles of the Eighth Section of the Liechtenstein CCP replicate the structure of the UNCITRAL Model Law. But the Liechtenstein law on arbitration has a wider scope than the UNCITRAL Model Law in that it does not only govern international commercial arbitration but also national and international commercial and non-commercial arbitration.
Are there any impending plans to reform the arbitration laws in your country?
Due to the quite recent amendments to the Liechtenstein law on arbitration, no reforms are presently pending.
What arbitral institutions (if any) exist in your country? When were their rules last amended? Are any amendments being considered?
Despite the enactment of the revised law on arbitration and the accession to the New York Convention, Liechtenstein still does not offer the possibility to resolve arbitral disputes in the context of institutionalized arbitral proceedings.
To overcome this deficiency, a number of Liechtenstein attorneys experienced in both litigation and arbitration established the Liechtenstein Arbitration Association.
Members of the Liechtenstein Arbitration Association drafted the Liechtenstein Rules (Rules) on arbitral proceedings that were then formally introduced by the Liechtenstein Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) in 2012. At present, there are no plans to amend the Rules.
What are the validity requirements for an arbitration agreement under the laws of your country?
The content and scope of an arbitration agreement are governed by § 598 of the Liechtenstein CCP. Pursuant to this provision, an arbitration agreement is an agreement between parties to submit any or all disputes which have arisen or will arise between them that relate to a contractual or non-contractual relationship between them to arbitration. The arbitration agreement may be concluded by way or a separate agreement or in the form of a clause forming part of a main agreement.
Arbitration agreements may be challenged under the general rules (§ 871 et seq. ABGB) on the grounds of error, fraudulent intent or duress. Furthermore, the valid conclusion of arbitration agreements is subject to formal requirements (§ 600 CCP).
Are arbitration clauses considered separable from the main contract?
The doctrine of separability, as expressly set out in Article 16 para 1 of the UNCITRAL Model Law is recognized by jurisprudence and in legal literature in principle, but has not been legislated for in the Liechtenstein law on arbitration. From a dogmatic perspective, the independence of the arbitration agreement from the main contract can only be justified if the parties have expressly agreed to it in the arbitration agreement or if the independence is (at least) in conformity with the parties’ hypothetical will, determined on the basis of the parties’ will’s supplementary interpretation.
Is there anything particular to note in your jurisdiction with regard to multi-party or multi-contract arbitration?
Liechtenstein law on arbitration does not expressly legislate for multi-party proceedings or multi-contract arbitration. The Liechtenstein Rules make reference to multi-party proceedings in Article 4.2 (initiation of arbitral proceedings), and Articles 9.3 and 9.4 (constitution of the arbitral tribunal).
In what instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an arbitration agreement?
There are several instances in which an arbitration clause can have binding effect on non-signatories under Liechtenstein law: as an example, in cases of succession – both singular succession and universal succession – the successor will (in principle) be automatically bound by the arbitration agreement. Also, a third party beneficiary of a contractual relationship may – when asserting his claim – rely on the arbitration clause which forms part of the underlying contract.
Even more important from a Liechtenstein perspective is the personal scope of arbitration clauses contained in the articles or statutes of Liechtenstein corporate entities and foundations, and in the trust deeds/declarations of trust of Liechtenstein trusts.
An arbitration clause contained in the articles or statutes of a corporation is binding upon the corporation, its shareholders and its corporate bodies. In the case of Liechtenstein foundations, the arbitration clause can be unilaterally imposed by the founder upon the foundation’s formation. It is (in principle) binding on all foundation participants, i.e. the founder, the beneficiaries, and (depending on the nature of the respective claim) also the foundation bodies.
How is the law applicable to the substance determined? Is there a specific set of choice of law rules in your country?
The law applicable to the substance of the dispute is determined in accordance with the provisions of § 620 Liechtenstein CCP. Pursuant to said provision, the arbitral tribunal has to decide the dispute on the basis of the laws or legal rules chosen by the parties. A choice of law relates to the respective jurisdiction’s substantive laws to the exclusion of the provisions on conflict of laws.
If the parties have not chosen laws or legal rules to be applied by the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral tribunal will apply the laws which it considers to be appropriate. The arbitral tribunal must only decide on the basis of equitable principles if the parties have expressly authorized the tribunal to do so.
Are any types of dispute considered non-arbitrable? Has there been any evolution in this regard in recent years?
Pursuant to § 599 of the Liechtenstein CCP, any claim involving an economic interest ("vermögensrechtlicher Anspruch") in relation to which the ordinary courts would have jurisdiction may be the subject matter of an agreement to arbitrate.
An arbitration agreement, the subject matter of which does not involve an economic interest, has nevertheless legal effect to the extent that the subject matter can be resolved by way of a settlement.
Family law matters and claims under apprenticeship contracts pursuant to the Law on Vocational Training are not arbitrable (§ 599 para. 2 of the Liechtenstein CCP).
§ 599 para. 3 Liechtenstein CCP finally provides that the jurisdiction of the Liechtenstein courts in proceedings that can only be initiated on the basis of mandatory provisions of Liechtenstein law (i.e. ex officio or upon application or notification by the foundation supervisory authority or the public prosecutor) may not be waived by an arbitration clause in the articles or statutes or similar constitutional documents of a corporate entity, foundation or trust.
With respect to commercial disputes, there is no doubt that such disputes are arbitrable. With respect to certain non-commercial disputes involving corporations, foundations or trusts the prevailing opinion is that such disputes are arbitrable unless these proceedings would aim at the initiation of supervisory proceedings. Claims for the removal of a member of the Foundation Council of a Liechtenstein foundation and claims for the rescission or nullification of resolutions of the Foundation Council of a Liechtenstein Foundation are not arbitrable.
In your country, are there any restrictions in the appointment of arbitrators?
The parties do have absolute autonomy with respect to the determination of criteria which an arbitrator must fulfil for being eligible to act in such capacity. Irrespective of whether or not the parties have agreed on such criteria in the arbitration agreement, they must take into consideration that arbitrators must be independent and impartial (see § 605 Liechtenstein CCP).
Are there any default requirements as to the selection of a tribunal?
Yes, a default procedure is available. If the parties have not agreed on a procedure for the selection of arbitrators or if the agreed procedure for the selection of arbitrators fails, the ordinary courts will intervene.
Can the local courts intervene in the selection of arbitrators? If so, how?
If the parties have not agreed on a procedure for the selection of arbitrators, the following applies: (a) if the parties fail to agree on the appointment of a sole arbitrator within a period of four weeks from the receipt by a party of the respective request to do so from the other party, the court will appoint the sole arbitrator upon application by one of the parties. If a party fails to appoint an arbitrator in the context of the appointment procedure for the composition of an arbitral tribunal, the same procedure as set out above applies in principle.
If the parties have agreed on a procedure for the selection of arbitrators but one of the parties does not follow the agreed-upon procedure, or the parties or arbitrators cannot find an agreement under the agreed-upon procedure, or if a third party does not fulfil tasks delegated to him or her in the context of the agreed-upon procedure, each party can file an application with the court to appoint the arbitrators unless the agreed-upon procedure provides otherwise (see § 604 Liechtenstein CCP)
Can the appointment of an arbitrator be challenged? What are the grounds for such challenge? What is the procedure for such challenge?
A person willing to act as an arbitrator has to disclose all factual circumstances which may create doubts as to such person’s independence and impartiality or which are not in line with the parties’ agreed criteria. Active judges of ordinary courts may not accept an appointment to act as an arbitrator (see § 605 Liechtenstein CCP).
The appointment of an arbitrator may only be challenged, if circumstances occur which raise justified doubts as to the independence and impartiality of such arbitrator or if he or she does not fulfill the criteria agreed upon by the parties.
In the absence of an agreement between the parties on the procedure for the challenge of an arbitrator’s appointment, the party wishing to challenge his or her appointment has to notify the arbitral tribunal of the reasons for such challenge within four weeks from the date on which it was notified of the composition of the arbitral tribunal or of the reasons for a challenge. If the arbitrator whose appointment is challenged does not resign or if the other party does not agree with such arbitrator’s resignation, the arbitral tribunal (including the challenged arbitrator) decides on the challenge.
If the challenge is unsuccessful, the challenging party may ask the court to take a decision on the challenge. The subsequent decision of the court is not subject to any appeal.
Article 11 of the Liechtenstein Rules contains supplementary provisions on the challenge of arbitrators.
What happens in the case of a truncated tribunal? Is the tribunal able to continue with the proceedings?
If an arbitrator’s office terminates before the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings, i.e. untimely, a replacement arbitrator has to be appointed following the same principles which have governed the appointment of the exiting arbitrator. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the arbitral tribunal may continue the arbitral proceedings on the basis of the then existing findings/results of the proceedings.
Articles 13 and 14 of the Liechtenstein Rules contain supplementary provisions on the replacement of arbitrators and the continuation of arbitral proceedings in such a case.
Are arbitrators immune from liability?
There is no provision under Liechtenstein law on arbitration that would provide for arbitrator immunity.
Is the principle of competence-competence recognised in your country?
Yes. The arbitral tribunal rules on its own jurisdiction, either in the context of the arbitral award on the merits of the dispute or in a separate (interim) arbitral award (see § 609 para. 1 Liechtenstein CCP).
What is the approach of local courts towards a party commencing litigation in apparent breach of an arbitration agreement?
If a plaintiff files a lawsuit in a matter which falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement, the court has to dismiss the action for formal reasons unless the defendant files submissions on the merits of the dispute or argues the matter in a hearing without raising an objection (see § 601 para. 1 Liechtenstein CCP).
How are arbitral proceedings commenced in your country? Are there any key provisions under the arbitration laws relating to limitation periods or time bars of which the parties should be aware?
Neither the commencement/initiation nor the pendency of arbitral proceedings are regulated by the Liechtenstein law on arbitration. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the arbitral proceedings are usually commenced/initiated by a notice of arbitration, while the pendency of the arbitral proceedings requires that a full statement of claim (indicating the subject matter of the proceedings) is served on the respondent.
Pursuant to Article 4.1 of the Liechtenstein Rules, arbitral proceedings shall be deemed to commence on the day on which the statement of claim is received by the respondent.
In what circumstances is it possible for a state or state entity to invoke state immunity in connection with the commencement of arbitration proceedings?
To the extent that a state or state entity has not acted in a sovereign capacity, it can in principle not invoke state immunity in the context of the commencement of arbitral proceedings.
What happens when a respondent fails to participate in the arbitration? Can the local courts compel participation?
If a respondent fails to comment on the statement of claim within the agreed term or prior to the expiration of a deadline set by the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral proceedings are continued, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. In case the arbitral proceedings are continued, the arbitral tribunal must not, without more, conclude from the respondent’s failure to participate that the claimant’s statements in its statement of claim are to be held as being true. The same principle applies in case the respondent fails to take any other procedural step. The arbitral tribunal will continue the arbitral proceedings and will take a decision based on the results of the evidentiary proceedings. If the failure to participate is excused, the respondent may make up for the relevant procedural act.
Can local courts order third parties to participate in arbitration proceedings in your country?
As a matter of principle (fair trial), third parties can only be joined in arbitral proceedings when there is an agreement between all parties to that effect. If a third party joins the arbitral proceedings after the arbitral tribunal’s constitution, it is advisable to expressly submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and hence to accept the proceedings at the stage they are in. The Liechtenstein CCP therefore does not contain a legal basis for compelling third parties to arbitrate against their will.
What interim measures are available? Will local courts issue interim measures pending the constitution of the tribunal?
In general, an arbitral tribunal may award preliminary or interim relief if otherwise the assertion of a claim would be rendered impossible or more difficult, or in case of a threat of an irrecoverable damage unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Preliminary or interim relief will only be granted after the arbitral tribunal will have heard both parties. No preliminary or interim relief will be granted on an ex parte basis. Arbitral tribunals do not have the authority, however, to grant preliminary or interim relief against third parties (“Drittverbote”).
However, an arbitral tribunal has to be constituted before it is in a position to grant interim relief. Up until the time of the arbitral tribunal’s constitution, it is therefore advisable to file applications for granting of interim relief with the court.
Are there particular rules governing evidentiary matters in arbitration? Will the local courts in your jurisdiction play any role in the obtaining of evidence? Can local courts compel witnesses to participate in arbitration proceedings?
As a general matter, the arbitral tribunal has wide discretion (within the limits imposed by the parties in that respect) to structure the evidentiary proceedings. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal decides whether an oral hearing shall take place or whether the proceedings are to be conducted in written form only. It is up to the arbitral tribunal to decide on the admissibility of evidence, to conduct evidentiary proceedings and to consider their outcome at its discretion (see § 616 Liechtenstein CCP). Furthermore, the arbitral tribunal may appoint expert witnesses and may obligate the parties to provide all relevant information to them.
If made applicable by the parties, the Liechtenstein Rules contain further provisions on the conduct of evidentiary proceedings which refer to the respective provisions of the Liechtenstein CCP governing the taking of evidence in ordinary court proceedings (see Article 18 of the Liechtenstein Rules and §§ 303 et seq. Liechtenstein CCP).
However, as an arbitral tribunal lacks sovereign powers, it may neither compel the production of evidence such as the appearance of witnesses and their providing testimony, nor may it request a witness or expert witness to swear an oath. The arbitral tribunal may freely consider (e.g.) a witness’ refusal to provide evidence but has no authoritative power to coerce such witness to do so. In such cases, the arbitral tribunal or the parties, with the arbitral tribunal’s prior consent, may apply to the ordinary court for judicial assistance.
What ethical codes and other professional standards, if any, apply to counsel and arbitrators conducting proceedings in your country?
There are no specific rules that would govern the conduct of counsel or arbitrators in arbitral proceedings. The general rules set forth in the Attorneys’ Act and in the Code of Conduct apply.
In your country, are there any rules with respect to the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings?
The Liechtenstein law on arbitration does not contain any provision which would stipulate a confidentiality obligation for arbitral proceedings. Only § 633 para. 2 Liechtenstein CCP provides that the public can be excluded upon application of a party from proceedings following the challenge of an arbitral award, but only if a legitimate interest is at stake. Hence, it is advisable to include provisions on the preservation of confidentiality in the arbitration agreement.
To make up for this deficiency, the Liechtenstein Rules contain numerous provisions on confidentiality obligations. First, Article 6 of the Liechtenstein Rules provides that only a person may be appointed to serve as an arbitrator who is subject to certain professional confidentiality obligations (such as lawyers, professional trustees that are regulated under Liechtenstein law, patent lawyers or auditors). If nominated, the nominee has to confirm that he/she satisfies this eligibility condition.
The substantive scope of the confidentiality obligation extends to (a) all awards and orders, (b) all materials submitted, and (c) all facts made available by other participants in the arbitral proceedings. The personal scope of the confidentiality obligation extends to the parties, their respective representatives, the experts, the arbitrators, any commissioner, the secretariat and their auxiliary personnel.
In case of specific needs for confidentiality the arbitral tribunal may make documents accessible to an expert "without granting the other parties access to these documents" (Article 29.3 of the Liechtenstein Rules).
The parties, their representatives, the arbitrators and any commissioner shall take appropriate organizational measures to safeguard the confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings, including e.g. encryption of email correspondence.
The obligation to preserve confidentiality does not terminate upon the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings, and is fortified by a contractual penalty of CHF 50,000.00 for each violation (Article 29.7 of the Liechtenstein Rules).
How are the costs of arbitration proceedings estimated and allocated?
As soon as the arbitral proceedings are concluded, the arbitral tribunal has to decide on the compensation for costs, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The arbitral tribunal has to take all circumstances of the case into consideration including the outcome of the arbitral proceedings. The decision on the compensation for costs needs to be made in the form of an arbitral award.
The Liechtenstein Rules contain more detailed provisions in that respect. Under the Liechtenstein Rules, the costs of the arbitration shall in principle be borne by the unsuccessful party to the extent it was unsuccessful (see Article 27 of the Liechtenstein Rules).
Can pre- and post-award interest be included on the principal claim and costs incurred?
Interest can be included on the principal claim from the date the claim has fallen due (pre-award) until the date of payment (post-award). Interest on cost can be included from the date of the award until payment.
What legal requirements are there in your country for the recognition and enforcement of an award? Is there a requirement that the award be reasoned, i.e. substantiated and motivated?
In case of a domestic arbitral award which is not subject to any challenge, it is not required to conduct separate exequatur proceedings. The party that prevailed in the arbitral proceedings can immediately file an application with the court to issue an enforcement order.
The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are governed by § 631 Liechtenstein CCP, and the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act, unless State Treaties or Reciprocity Arrangements (“Gegenrechtserklärungen”) provide otherwise. As Liechtenstein has acceded to the New York Convention, the Convention’s Articles IV and V apply. In case of a foreign award, the prevailing party must also file an application to issue an enforcement order together with an application to declare the arbitral award to be enforceable. I.e. the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act does not provide for separate exequatur proceedings. The enforceability of a foreign arbitral award is reviewed by the court as part of the proceedings for the issuance of an enforcement order.
The requirement of a reasoned award is set out in § 623 para. 2 CCP. Also Article 23.3 of the Liechtenstein Rules provides that the arbitral tribunal shall state the reasons upon which the award is based.
What is the estimated timeframe for the recognition and enforcement of an award? May a party bring a motion for the recognition and enforcement of an award on an ex parte basis?
No general statement can be made as to the time frame for the court’s decision to issue an enforcement order, but usually the prevailing party’s application will be dealt with within a relatively short period of time. The court will in principle decide on the issuance of an enforcement order based on the prevailing party’s application without any oral hearing and without hearing the other party, unless the Enforcement Act provides otherwise.
Does the arbitration law of your country provide a different standard of review for recognition and enforcement of a foreign award compared with a domestic award?
Pursuant to Article 1 para. m) of the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act (“Exekutionsordnung”), awards of an arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal that are not or no longer appealable to a higher arbitration body, as well as settlements concluded before an arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal will be enforced by the Liechtenstein courts.
With respect to foreign arbitral awards, there are no provisions under the Liechtenstein CCP that would govern such foreign arbitral awards’ recognition or enforcement. Pursuant to § 631 Liechtenstein CCP, the recognition and declaration of enforceability (i.e. exequatur) of foreign arbitral awards are governed by the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act, which, however, does not contain provisions on separate exequatur proceedings. As a result, the Execution Act provides that the issue of enforceability of a foreign award needs to be decided as a preliminary question in enforcement proceedings.
Does the law impose limits on the available remedies? Are some remedies not enforceable by the local courts?
The type of remedy available in arbitral proceedings depends on the arbitrability of the subject matter of the underlying dispute and on the remedies available under the substantive law applicable to the issues at hand.
For example, family law matters and claims under apprenticeship contracts pursuant to the Law on Vocational Training are not arbitrable under the Liechtenstein law on arbitration. Furthermore, only the Liechtenstein ordinary courts have jurisdiction in cases which as a matter of mandatory law can only be instigated upon application by the foundation supervisory authority or ex officio. The jurisdiction of the ordinary courts may not be excluded in favor of arbitration. Hence, claims that are directed towards the initiation of supervisory proceedings are not arbitrable. If the remedy sought is the removal of a member of the Foundation Council of a Liechtenstein Foundation, such remedy cannot be achieved by way of arbitration. Similar considerations apply in case the remedy is the invalidation of a resolution of the Foundation Council of a Liechtenstein Foundation.
With respect to damages claims, those are arbitrable as a matter of principle; under Liechtenstein substantive law, punitive damages are not an available remedy.
Can arbitration awards be appealed or challenged in local courts? What are the grounds and procedure?
The (only) legal remedy available against an arbitral award is an application to the ordinary court to set aside the award. Grounds on the basis of which such application can be brought are the following: (a) the lack of a valid arbitration agreement, the denial of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction despite the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, or the lack of capacity of a party under the applicable law to enter into an arbitration agreement; (b) the lack of notification of a party about the arbitral proceedings or about the appointment of the arbitrators; (c) the arbitral award exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement; (d) the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in compliance with either the agreement between the parties or the applicable provisions of the Liechtenstein CCP; (e) the arbitral proceedings were conducted in a way violating the Liechtenstein procedural ordre public; f) the prerequisites that would otherwise allow the reinstatement of ordinary court proceedings have been fulfilled; or (g) the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable under national law, or the arbitral award violated the Liechtenstein substantive ordre public (see § 628 para. 2 Liechtenstein CCP).
Can the parties waive any rights of appeal or challenge to an award by agreement before the dispute arises (such as in the arbitration clause)?
§ 628 para. 3 Liechtenstein CCP provides that the grounds for a challenge of an arbitral award which are set out in § 628 para. 2 sub-para 7 (lack of arbitrability) and 8 (violation of the Liechtenstein ordre public) Liechtenstein CCP may also be raised ex officio. From that provision the majority of legal scholars conclude that parties to an arbitration cannot waive these two grounds as a basis of challenge, neither prior to nor after the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. All other grounds stipulated in § 628 para. 2 sub-paras. 1-6 Liechtenstein CCP may be waived after the award has been rendered, but not before, in particular, not in the arbitration agreement.
To what extent might a state or state entity successfully raise a defence of state or sovereign immunity at the enforcement stage?
On 22 April 2015 Liechtenstein acceded to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which, however, has not yet entered into force. In general, a state or state entity may not raise sovereign immunity as a defense at the enforcement stage, unless the claim with respect to which enforcement is sought results from a sovereign act of the respective state or state entity.
In what instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an award? To what extent might a third party challenge the recognition of an award?
Third parties or non-signatories that have not been formally joined in the arbitral proceedings are not bound by the arbitral award. As a consequence, they are not entitled to challenge the award. However, they may obtain a declaratory judgment that they are not bound by the award.
Have courts in your jurisdiction considered third party funding in connection with arbitration proceedings recently?
Interest for external financing of court and arbitral proceedings has been continuously increasing, but third party funding has not yet played a role in published decisions.
Is emergency arbitrator relief available in your country? Is this frequently used?
Neither the Liechtenstein law on arbitration nor the Liechtenstein Rules contain provisions on the appointment of emergency arbitrators.
Are there arbitral laws or arbitration institutional rules in your country providing for simplified or expedited procedures for claims under a certain value? Are they often used?
Neither the Liechtenstein law on arbitration nor the Liechtenstein Rules contain provisions on expedited procedures for claims under a certain value.
Have measures been taken by arbitral institutions in your country to promote transparency in arbitration?
No. The Liechtenstein Rules have – among other reasons – been designed to promote the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings (see e.g. Article 18 of the Liechtenstein Rules in the context of evidentiary proceedings and Article 29 of the Liechtenstein Rules governing the principle of confidentiality in principle).
Is diversity in the choice of arbitrators and counsel (e.g. gender, age, origin) actively promoted in your country? If so, how?
No initiatives have been taken in that respect so far.
Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the setting aside of an award that has been enforced in another jurisdiction or vice versa?
No published decisions are known to date.
Is corruption an issue that is regularly raised in your jurisdiction? What standard do local courts apply for proving of corruption?
No. Corruption charges may, however, be grounds for foreign courts/authorities to request legal assistance by Liechtenstein courts.
Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the definition and application of “public policy” in the context of enforcing or setting aside an arbitral award?
Liechtenstein courts have repeatedly considered the definition and application of the term “public policy”, also in the context of the challenge of arbitral awards. Liechtenstein courts have held that the main purpose of the concept of public policy is the preservation of the fundamental principles of the Liechtenstein legal system. The public policy clause should therefore only be invoked in exceptional cases involving intolerable violations of such fundamental principles. The following principles, among others, form part of the Liechtenstein public policy: the principle of good faith, the prohibition of punitive damages, the right to be heard, the principle of res iudicata, and the principle of good morals.
Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV (Case C-284/16) with respect to intra-European Union bilateral investment treaties or the Energy Charter Treaty? Are there any pending decisions?
No published decisions are known to date.
Have there are been any recent decisions in your country considering the General Court of the European Union’s decision Micula & ors (Joined Cases T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-694.15), ECLI:EU:T:2019:423, dated 18 June 2019? Are there any pending decisions?
No published decisions are known to date.