Regarding the main dispute resolution methods in Liechtenstein, a distinction can be made between state court litigation and alternative dispute resolution methods. The most common mechanisms include:

• contentious proceedings before state courts, governed by the Code of Civil Procedure;
• non-contentious proceedings also before state courts, governed by the Code on Non-Contentious Matters;
• arbitration proceedings; and
• mediation, which is regulated under the Mediation Act.

Traditional litigation remains a highly utilised method for resolving disputes in Liechtenstein. State courts publish annual statistics demonstrating this reliance, with a current ratio of roughly three to two regarding contentious proceedings versus non-contentious proceedings.

The allocation of a case to either contentious or non-contentious proceedings is strictly prescribed by law. Classic civil and commercial disputes, such as claims for damages or contractual disagreements, must be conducted through contentious proceedings. Conversely, non-contentious proceedings are not legally permitted for these standard disputes. Instead, they are frequently utilised to resolve specific matters under the Persons and Companies Law, with a strong focus on foundation and trust issues.

In contrast, there are no official statistics regarding the frequency of arbitration cases due to the inherent privacy of these proceedings. Nevertheless, legal practitioners observe a strong and continuous affinity for arbitration within the Liechtenstein market.

State court litigation can be a practical choice when the defending party has its registered office or assets within Liechtenstein. It is also effective for disputes involving parties located in Austria or Switzerland as bilateral treaties exist between Liechtenstein and these neighbouring countries which facilitate the straightforward cross-border enforcement of court judgments.

Without such treaties being in place, enforcing a Liechtenstein court ruling internationally can be challenging.

A crucial factor driving the preference for arbitration is global enforceability. Liechtenstein has ratified the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This makes arbitration attractive for cross-border cases, as it ensures that foreign arbitral awards can be successfully enforced against Liechtenstein parties, and vice versa.

Another major reason for choosing arbitration proceedings is confidentiality, as parties frequently want to exclude the public from sensitive matters.

Compared to state court litigation, arbitration offers a swifter resolution to disputes and provides parties with greater procedural flexibility.

Conversely, state court litigation features multiple instances of appeal. While this inherently prolongs the process, it guarantees a comprehensive judicial review. Parties often value this classic aspect of legal protection, especially when the stakes are high.

A key trend in Liechtenstein dispute resolution is the increasing complexity and scale of civil proceedings.

While the duration of proceedings is a critical procedural factor when resolving a dispute, time also plays a fundamental role in Liechtenstein substantive law, as provided for in the respective limitation periods. Recent legislative reforms have significantly updated these rules, making a detailed legal assessment essential before filing a lawsuit.

General Limitation Periods

Effective from April of this year, the general long (or “absolute”) limitation period for civil claims was reduced from 30 years to ten years. However, the 30-year period still applies to damages arising from crimes or punishable offences (in cases where the party was unaware of the damage/identity of the liable party).

Specific and Shorter Time Limits

Alongside the general limitation period, Liechtenstein law prescribes various shorter limitation periods for specific civil and commercial claims:

• Financial Services: The absolute limitation period for compensation and restitution claims against financial service providers is capped at ten years (previously 30 years).
• Warranties: Claims must be brought within two years for movable property and three years for immovable property.
• Recurring Payments: Claims for annual obligations, such as interest payments, expire after three years.
• General Damages: Standard compensation claims become time-barred three years from the moment the injured party is aware of both the damage and the liable party.

Directors’ and Officers’ Liability

Specific statutory rules govern liability claims against the corporate organs of Liechtenstein legal entities. These claims generally become time-barred three years after the legal entity becomes aware of the damage and the responsible party, with an absolute bar ten years after the damaging act occurred. However, if the liability stems from intentional misconduct, the limitation period is extended to ten years starting from the date of knowledge.

Structure of the Ordinary Courts

Liechtenstein features a clear, three-tiered judicial system for civil and commercial disputes, with all courts situated in the capital, Vaduz. The jurisdiction comprises a single judicial district that encompasses the entire country. The ordinary judicial structure consists of three levels/instances, as detailed in 2.4 Stages of Court Proceedings.

Specialist Courts and Jury Trials

There are no specialist courts within the Liechtenstein judicial system. All civil, commercial, and criminal matters are handled by the ordinary courts described above. Furthermore, jury trials are not known in the jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

Stages of Ordinary Court Proceedings

Liechtenstein features a three-tiered judicial system for civil and commercial disputes, with all ordinary courts located in Vaduz:

• First Instance: The Princely District Court (Fürstliches Landgericht) hears initial cases, through a single judge.
• Second Instance: The Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) reviews first-instance decisions on points of fact and law via three-judge panels.
• Third Instance: The Princely Supreme Court (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof) serves as the final appellate court, reviewing cases strictly on points of law.

Restrictions on Supreme Court Appeals

In contentious proceedings, appeals are generally inadmissible if the dispute value is below CHF5,000 or if the dispute value is below CHF50,000 and the appellate court entirely confirmed the first-instance decision. In non-contentious matters, an appeal is generally precluded if both lower courts have issued identical rulings.

Constitutional Review

Beyond the ordinary appellate process, final decisions can be challenged before the Constitutional Court (Staatsgerichtshof). This extraordinary avenue is strictly limited to cases alleging a direct violation of a party’s constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Expected Duration of Proceedings

The Liechtenstein judiciary is internationally connected and considered highly efficient by global standards. A significant majority of standard civil proceedings are concluded in under two years. However, complex disputes can take considerably longer, particularly when parties exhaust all available levels of appeal.

Liechtenstein court proceedings are typically open to the public. However, the court can grant an exclusion to protect public order, ensure an undisturbed procedure, or shield private family facts and confidential business information from disclosure.

In Liechtenstein, interim relief measures are commonly sought and frequently recommended in legal disputes to secure claims before a final judgment is issued.

Because interim relief aims to provide effective protection, it must be granted and enforced quickly. Therefore, the underlying claim and the risk to its enforcement only need to be prima facie established (certified) rather than fully proven.

There are two main types of interim remedies:

• Security of Monetary Claims (Sicherungsbot): Interim relief may be granted to secure a monetary claim if there is a concrete risk that enforcement would be frustrated or significantly hindered without such a measure. Alternatively, relief may be granted if the claimant certifies the claim and shows an objective risk that enforcement would need to take place abroad, while no sufficient assets are available in Liechtenstein. A particular feature of Liechtenstein law is that an applicant is not only informed – by way of the third-party debtor’s statement within 14 days – whether assets have been successfully frozen but also obtains a lien over those frozen assets.
• Security of Non-Monetary Claims (“official order”, Amtsbefehl): This form of interim relief applies to non-monetary claims, such as claims for performance, acquiescence, or omission. The applicant must assert and certify both the claim and the risk that, without interim relief, the enforcement or realisation of the claim would be frustrated or considerably more difficult.

In commercial disputes in Liechtenstein, the court may issue the following types of decisions, which constitute final relief:

• monetary judgments, including payment of damages;
• performance judgments requiring a party to act, such as fulfilling obligations or refraining from certain actions;
• declaratory judgments confirming legal rights or positions; and/or
• judgments creating a legal fiction of the submission of a declaration of intent.

Liechtenstein courts consider both the type of damage and the fault of the wrongdoer when assessing damages. Compensation is based on the difference principle: the injured party should be placed in the position they would have been in had the damaging event not occurred.

In cases of gross fault, both positive damage (eg, replacement value) and lost profits are taken into account; in cases of slight negligence, only the positive damage is granted.

A distinction is also made between different types of damage. Property damage (Vermögensschaden) includes positive damage (loss in value) and lost profits. Non-pecuniary (immaterial) damage refers to impairments not measurable in money, such as pain and suffering or invasion of privacy.

The court may freely estimate damages when proving the exact amount is difficult. In such cases:

• The claimant only needs to allege the damage, not prove the exact amount.
• The estimation must be based on concrete indications and reasonably justified (eg, on an expert opinion).        

As outlined in 1.2 Choice of Dispute Resolution Method, there is a strong affinity in Liechtenstein for conducting proceedings before arbitral tribunals. Contracting parties, as well as founders of foundations and settlors of trusts, value arbitration as a forum for private dispute resolution by expert judges. This preference is rooted in the desire for specialised legal expertise and the confidentiality provided by the arbitral process.

In Liechtenstein, any claim involving economic interests that falls under the jurisdiction of the state courts can generally be referred to arbitration, including most corporate law disputes. However, certain matters such as the valid establishment or dissolution of a legal entity, as well as family law claims and apprenticeship contracts, are strictly non-arbitrable.

While arbitration is mandatory for foreign law trusts established in Liechtenstein and widely permitted for domestic trusts and foundations, supervisory measures regarding foundations remain under the mandatory jurisdiction of the Princely Court of Justice. Furthermore, specific formal requirements must be met for arbitration agreements in labour and consumer law to ensure the protection of the typically weaker party.

The primary advantages of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism (as noted in1.2 Choice of Dispute Resolution Method) include strict confidentiality and the flexibility of the procedural framework. Parties also value the opportunity to appoint specialised experts as arbitrators and the reduced duration of proceedings compared to traditional litigation.

Furthermore, the international enforceability of arbitral awards remains a decisive factor for choosing arbitration in cross-border disputes.

Among the principal disadvantages of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism are its comparatively high costs. Arbitral tribunals typically charge on an hourly basis, and Liechtenstein arbitration law provides, in cases of doubt, for a three-member tribunal. Consequently, arbitrators’ fees may effectively be incurred threefold. In addition, parties are generally required to make advance payments on costs, which may constitute a barrier to commencing or pursuing proceedings.

Furthermore, the options for challenging an arbitral award are limited. As a rule, an arbitral award is final, and no ordinary legal remedy comparable to an appeal is available. The only available recourse is to bring an action before the courts to set aside the award. However, the law recognises only limited grounds for setting aside an award, namely serious procedural or substantive defects, such as violations of public policy (ordre public), an invalid arbitration agreement, or lack of arbitrability.

Liechtenstein does not possess its own institutionalised arbitration court. However, the legal framework allows for proceedings to be conducted under institutionalised rules. The Liechtenstein Arbitration Association provides a local procedural framework through the “Liechtenstein Rules”. If the parties declare them applicable, the proceedings are conducted under the authority of the Liechtenstein Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Liechtenstein can serve as an attractive place of arbitration due to its political neutrality and central location. However, many proceedings are conducted under the auspices of the Swiss Arbitration Centre or the Vienna International Arbitration Centre. These regional institutions are frequently chosen by parties due to their geographical proximity and significant legal similarities to the Liechtenstein system.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

The primary legal framework for arbitration in Liechtenstein is set out in the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which is aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

Furthermore, Liechtenstein has ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This ratification guarantees that arbitral awards rendered in the Principality are enforceable globally, while also providing a clear mechanism for the enforcement of foreign awards within the jurisdiction.

Interim Relief

The Liechtenstein Code of Civil Procedure provides specific mechanisms for state courts to support and safeguard the arbitral process. Parties retain the right to apply to the Princely Court of Justice for interim injunctions both before and during arbitral proceedings. This power of the state court remains independent of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, ensuring that urgent provisional relief is available even when an arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted or lacks the power to enforce such measures.

Judicial Assistance

State courts also provide essential judicial assistance for procedural acts that fall outside the arbitral tribunal’s coercive powers. Such intervention is strictly secondary and requires a formal request from the arbitrators or a party with the tribunal’s prior consent. This mechanism allows the court to execute measures like compelling witness testimony or requesting international assistance from foreign authorities, ensuring the efficiency of the proceedings while respecting the principle of minimal judicial interference.

Enforcement

The Princely Court also plays a crucial role in the enforcement of arbitral awards. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, the enforcement of foreign awards is governed by the provisions of the Enforcement Act, in conjunction with the New York Convention. This framework ensures that the state courts provide the necessary coercive power to execute awards, while limiting their intervention to a formal review of the award’s validity and compliance with public policy.

Apart from the assistance regarding interim relief, judicial assistance, and enforcement mentioned in 3.8 Court Powers, arbitral awards may be challenged before the state courts. Such intervention is limited to instances of significant procedural errors, such as the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, violation of the right to be heard, or where the award exceeds the tribunal’s jurisdiction or infringes Liechtenstein public policy (ordre public).

In Liechtenstein, arbitral awards are generally final and binding, yet they remain subject to a limited form of judicial review through an action to set aside the award. This procedure is handled by the state courts and does not allow for a full review of the merits, the facts, or the application of the law. The objective is to balance the autonomy of the arbitration process with the need for basic legal oversight. Such judicial intervention is strictly limited to cases involving significant procedural errors, such as a violation of the right to be heard, or where the award fundamentally infringes upon Liechtenstein’s public policy.

Mediation is a widely available ADR method for civil disputes and may be initiated both prior to and after the commencement of court proceedings.

Furthermore, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act governs out-of-court settlement procedures for disputes arising from consumer contracts between Liechtenstein-based entrepreneurs and consumers residing in Liechtenstein or the EEA. For disputes within the financial services sector, a specialised conciliation office/ombudsman serves as a dedicated ADR body.

Mediation in Civil Law Disputes

Mediation is an ADR method available for civil law disputes in Liechtenstein, which can be initiated both before and after the commencement of court proceedings. It offers a flexible framework where a neutral third party helps the participants reach a voluntary and mutually acceptable settlement.

Consumer and Financial Sector ADR

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act provides a specific mechanism for out-of-court settlements between Liechtenstein-based entrepreneurs and consumers residing within the European Economic Area. For example, a conciliation office/ombudsman is installed to resolve disputes specifically within the financial services sector.

Engaging in ADR is generally a voluntary process in Liechtenstein and does not prevent parties from later pursuing litigation or arbitration.

One of the most significant legal impacts of formal ADR is the suspension of limitation periods, as explained in 4.4 Timing of ADR.

In Liechtenstein, ADR typically takes place before a lawsuit is filed, as parties often prefer to resolve disputes discreetly and cost-effectively.

The initiation of ADR procedures under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act or the Civil Law Mediation Act has a suspending impact on the statute of limitations. Once such a process is formally started, the running of limitation periods for the claims in question is effectively suspended. This ensures that parties can engage in good-faith negotiations without the risk of their legal claims expiring, preserving their right to return to court if the ADR process does not result in a resolution.

Beyond the impact on timelines, the legal framework guarantees strict confidentiality. Also, the proceedings themselves are private and not open to the public.

The compensation for mediators in Liechtenstein is typically based on hourly or daily rates agreed upon by the parties at the beginning. While private mediation involves professional fees usually shared between the participants, proceedings before the conciliation office/ombudsman for consumers are fundamentally free of charge. In certain instances, consumers may be required to provide a nominal cost contribution.

In Liechtenstein, the courts generally adopt a supportive and facilitative attitude towards ADR, including in particular mediation. Importantly, Liechtenstein law also supports the effectiveness of such pre-litigation or settlement-oriented steps through limitation rules. In particular, the commencement and proper continuation of mediation under this Act suspend the commencement and running of limitation periods and other time limits for asserting the rights and claims covered by the mediation.

Court Fees and Attorney Remuneration in Litigation

In Liechtenstein litigation, court fees are regulated by the Court Fees Act (Gerichtsgebührengesetz). These fees are typically triggered at the commencement of the proceedings and upon the filing of any subsequent appeals.

Regarding legal representation, attorney fees can be freely negotiated within the framework of the Lawyers’ Fees Act, which considers factors such as the complexity of the matter and the nature of the legal services provided. In practice, most law firms in commercial disputes operate on the basis of hourly billing arrangements. Under the Liechtenstein Civil Procedure Rules, the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of legal costs based on the Lawyers’ Tariff Act (RATG). This includes, on the one hand, the court fees and, on the other hand, the attorneys’ fees determined in accordance with the statutory tariff.

Financial Structure of Arbitration

In arbitration proceedings, the financial arrangements differ as the parties generally share the costs of the tribunal equally at the outset. Each party is typically required to provide advances on costs to cover the arbitrators’ fees and administrative expenses.

Liechtenstein law does not provide specific statutory rules or a regulatory framework governing the third-party funding of legal disputes. Consequently, there are no formal restrictions on the financial arrangements between funders and litigants.

There is also no statutory obligation for parties to disclose their funding arrangements to the court or the opposing party.

Contingency fee agreements (pactum de quota litis), which grant the lawyer a share of the dispute’s proceeds, are prohibited between lawyers and their clients.

The insurance coverage for the respective type of dispute resolution highly depends on the respective insurance contract. Standard legal protection insurance in Liechtenstein typically covers the financial risks of court proceedings. Coverage for arbitration, ADR, and mediation can also be part of a respective legal protection insurance policy.

Cost Recovery in Litigation

In Liechtenstein litigation, the “loser pays” principle applies, meaning the prevailing party can recover statutory attorney fees and court costs from the losing party. These cost awards can be appealed either together with the main judgment or as a standalone matter, in which case the Court of Appeal serves as the final instance. This system ensures that the successful party is reimbursed for the necessary expenses incurred in defending or asserting their legal position.

Cost Allocation in Arbitration

In arbitration, the tribunal typically decides on the reimbursement of costs at the end of the proceedings, taking into account the outcome and the principle of reasonableness. Under the Liechtenstein Code of Civil Procedure, this decision focuses on the parties’ legal costs, as the arbitrators’ fees are usually governed by a separate agreement.

If the “Liechtenstein Rules” are applied, the losing party generally bears the costs, though the tribunal retains the discretion to apportion them differently if the circumstances of the case warrant a more equitable distribution.

Liechtenstein procedural law stipulates that legal costs are awarded based on the principle of success. Consequently, the losing party must compensate the winning party for its legal costs in proportion to the extent the lawsuit was won.

However, only costs deemed necessary for an appropriate legal defence are compensable; therefore, not every procedural step taken by a lawyer is subject to reimbursement. Furthermore, the court’s awarding of costs is not based on the actual time spent by the lawyer, but rather on the statutory lawyers’ tariff. As a result, a client may not be fully reimbursed for the actual costs incurred by their own lawyer.

The primary types of interim relief are outlined in 2.6 Interim Relief. In particular, the security of monetary claims (Sicherungsbot) and security of non-monetary claims (“official order”, Amtsbefehl) serve as a key measure under Liechtenstein law to secure a creditor’s position.

As outlined in 3.8 Court Powers, granting interim injunctions is one of the key powers of state courts to support arbitration. However, this judicial assistance does not extend to other types of ADR.

Interim injunctions can be issued upon application before, during, or even within enforcement proceedings to safeguard a claimant’s rights.

The primary purpose of interim relief is to secure the creditor’s position for future execution. It ensures that neither the debtor’s conduct nor adverse circumstances frustrate the creditor’s ability to satisfy their claim once an enforceable title is obtained. To be effective, such relief should be issued and enforced with the utmost speed.

In contentious proceedings (but not in non-contentious matters), the defendant may, before materially entering the proceedings, apply for security for costs if they are sued by a party not domiciled in Liechtenstein, Switzerland or Austria (jurisdictions where decisions of the recovery for costs of the Liechtenstein courts can be enforced based on respective treaties) or by a Liechtenstein legal entity that fails to demonstrate sufficient assets to cover the anticipated litigation costs. To be exempt from this requirement, such assets must be of a stable nature, such as real estate located within Liechtenstein.

Consequently, security in the amount of the estimated court and attorney fees may be required due to the risk of a cost award being unenforceable.

The main types of interim relief are outlined in 2.6 Interim Relief.

In Liechtenstein, there is no direct equivalent to “summary judgment” as found in common law jurisdictions. However, the Code of Civil Procedure provides for several mechanisms to resolve disputes without a full trial. For monetary claims, a plaintiff can initiate a payment order procedure (Schuldentrieb- und Rechtsbotverfahren), where the court issues an order based solely on the written claim. If the defendant does not file an objection within 14 days, the order becomes a final and enforceable judgment without a trial.

Additionally, a claim can be disposed of through a default judgment (Versäumnisurteil) if one party fails to participate in the proceedings, or a judgment by confession (Anerkenntnisurteil) if the defendant admits the claim.

Furthermore, a defendant may apply for the early dismissal of a claim if it is manifestly inconclusive (unschlüssig) or lacks essential procedural requirements, such as court jurisdiction. In cases where only a specific part of a claim is ready for a decision, the court may also issue a partial judgment (Teilurteil) to streamline the remaining proceedings.

There are no specific rules governing class actions in Liechtenstein.

In consumer protection laws, specific associations may bring a claim against terms and conditions of businesses which are to the detriment of consumers.

A claimant must be fully entitled to enforce the right in question; otherwise, the claim will be dismissed for lack of standing (Aktivlegitimation). Only in certain circumstances, such as where a claim has been assigned or the disputed right has been transferred to a third party, may a claimant bring proceedings on the basis of rights originally held by another person.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

Liechtenstein procedural law does not provide for broad discovery comparable to that available in common law jurisdictions. Instead, the production of documents is governed by specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Between the Parties of the Proceeding

A party may request the court to order the opposing party or a third party to produce a specific document if:

• the opponent has expressly referred to the document in requestion as evidence;
• the opponent is under a legal obligation to hand over the document; or
• the document was drawn up in the legal interest of both parties or certifies a mutual legal relationship between the two or contains written statements between the parties during their negotiation of a legal act.

The opposing party may refuse to produce documents if:

• the disclosure concerns documents relating to family life;
• the production of the documents would violate obligations of honour;
• the disclosure could lead to disgrace or expose the party to the risk of criminal prosecution;
• the disclosure would violate a statutory duty of confidentiality from which the party has not been released, or the production would infringe a business secret; or
• other comparable reasons apply.

However, the production of documents cannot be enforced if a party refuses to comply.

Third Parties

The court may also order a third party to produce documents where the third party is under a legal obligation to hand them over, or where the document was drawn up in the interest of both the third party and the requesting party, certifies a legal relationship between them, or contains written statements exchanged between them during the negotiation of a legal transaction.

Types of Privilege

In Liechtenstein, privilege is primarily based on statutory duties of secrecy. Attorney–Client privilege is a strict professional obligation, covering all information entrusted to a lawyer. Similar statutory protections apply to trustees, auditors, and doctors. Banking secrecy remains a recognised form of privilege.

Withholding Documents

As outlined above in 8.1 Disclosure, the respective professions may refuse to produce documents or testify if doing so would breach a statutory duty of secrecy. The court cannot compel the production of privileged materials.

Waiver of Privilege

Privilege can be waived in the following circumstances:

• Client Consent: Privilege can be waived if the client explicitly releases the professional from their duty of secrecy.
• Self-Defence: The lawyer may disclose information to defend against claims brought by the client.

As explained in 8.1 Disclosure and 8.2 Privilege. Liechtenstein law recognises the right to withhold evidence based on statutory duties of confidentiality.

In addition to the primary aspects outlined in8.2 Privilege, it should be noted that specific legislation, such as anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, may impose statutory reporting or disclosure obligations that supersede general duties of confidentiality.

Oral Testimony

Witnesses are generally required to testify orally during the trial to ensure the immediacy of evidence. While written witness statements (affidavits) are not a substitute for oral testimony in main proceedings, they are commonly used when applying for interim relief to substantiate the urgency and merit of the claim.

No Pre-trial Depositions

Liechtenstein law does not recognise pre-trial depositions (out-of-court testimony recorded by lawyers); instead, evidence is collected directly by the court. Prior to the commencement of formal proceedings, the securing of evidence (Beweissicherung) may be conducted by the court through a formal procedure, provided there is a significant risk that the evidence might be lost before the trial.

Examination Process

The judge leads the examination and conducts the primary questioning. Once the judge has finished, the legal representatives are permitted to ask supplemental questions. The questioning is generally less intense than a common law cross-examination and the judge maintains control over the relevance and fairness of the questions asked.

Expert evidence is a permitted means of proof under the Liechtenstein Code of Civil Procedure, utilised when the court requires specialised technical knowledge to evaluate specific facts or assistance in interpreting and applying foreign law.

Appointment of Experts

In Liechtenstein, experts are appointed by the court, not by the parties. While parties may suggest specific candidates, the final selection rests solely with the judge, who typically appoints from an official list of certified experts.

Duties of the Expert

An expert acts as an “assistant to the court”. Their primary duties include:

• Impartiality: The expert must remain neutral and could be challenged for bias on the same grounds as a judge.
• Overriding Duty to the Court: The obligation to provide an objective, evidence-based opinion supersedes the interests of the parties.
• Oral Clarification: Experts usually attend the proceedings to explain their written findings and answer supplemental questions from the judge and the parties.

Party-Appointed Experts

Reports from “private” experts engaged by the parties are not considered independent evidence; however, the court may consider these reports.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

The enforcement of foreign judgments in Liechtenstein is primarily governed by national law, in particular the Enforcement Act, according to which, enforcement measures based on foreign judgments or documents are only permissible where this is provided for in international treaties or where reciprocity is guaranteed either by treaty or by a formal governmental declaration.

Liechtenstein is not a party to the Brussels or Lugano Conventions on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Bilateral treaties providing for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments exist only with Austria and Switzerland. Even these treaties do not cover all civil matters and explicitly exclude certain types of decisions, such as interim measures or judgments issued in insolvency proceedings.

The Procedure for Non-Treaty Jurisdictions

For judgments from countries without a bilateral treaty (such as the UK, USA, or most EU member states), the judgment cannot be enforced directly. They may be treated as public documents and can therefore facilitate the assertion of claims. In particular, such documents may serve as the basis for initiating summary proceedings called Rechtsöffnungsverfahren. In these proceedings, the claimant uses the foreign judgment as evidence to request a summary court order. The court reviews the document to determine if the creditor has a claim.

If the court rules in favour of the claimant, the debtor has 14 days to file an action for annulment (Aberkennungsklage). If an action for annulment is filed, the case proceeds to a full trial. While the foreign judgment usually is a powerful evidentiary tool, the court will formally re-examine whether the claim is justified under Liechtenstein law.

Arbitral Awards and the New York Convention

Liechtenstein has ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Consequently, arbitral awards issued in a contracting state are recognised and enforced in Liechtenstein.

Domestic arbitral awards are treated as enforceable titles under the Liechtenstein Execution Act, provided they are final and formally confirmed by the tribunal.

For foreign awards, Liechtenstein adheres to the New York Convention, ensuring the recognition and enforcement of awards from all contracting states without a review on the merits (révision au fond), subject only to the limited grounds for refusal, which include, according to Article V of the Convention, lack of due process, excess of mandate, and ordre public.

If a foreign arbitral award exists, the successful party must apply for a writ of execution together with a request for a declaration that the arbitral award is enforceable. Additionally, the application must be accompanied by the original award and a certified German translation as well as evidence confirming the seat of the arbitral tribunal. Following a summary review for formal compliance, the court authorises execution measures.

If a judgment is directly enforceable in Liechtenstein, the formal enforcement order is typically issued within a few weeks.

However, the overall duration also depends on the type of assets involved; the attachment of bank accounts or salary claims is generally swift. Execution against immovable property or physical assets takes significantly longer due to required valuations and public auctions.

The court order authorising execution can be challenged by the debtor within a 14-day statutory period. If an appeal is lodged, the proceedings will be extended accordingly.

As explained in 9.1 Enforcement of Judgments, the grounds for resisting enforcement vary depending on whether the decision is a court judgment or an arbitral award. For foreign judgments, a party may resist enforcement primarily by invoking a lack of reciprocity, as Liechtenstein generally requires a treaty or a declaration of reciprocity (with notable exceptions for Swiss and Austrian judgments). In practice, this requires a formal declaration of reciprocity by the Liechtenstein government; however, no such declaration has been issued to date. Consequently, if a foreign judgment is not directly enforceable, Liechtenstein law provides for an alternative to standard civil proceedings through a simplified procedure, the so-called Rechtsöffnungsverfahren, as explained in 9.1 Enforcement of Judgments.

Regarding arbitral awards, Liechtenstein is a signatory to the New York Convention, and enforcement may be resisted only on the narrow grounds set out therein. For example, a party can resist enforcement of arbitral awards in Liechtenstein by arguing that the arbitration agreement is invalid; the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice or was unable to present their case; jurisdictional excess; the subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Liechtenstein law; or the enforcement of the award would be contrary to Liechtenstein public policy.

For the time being, there is no standalone AI legislation in Liechtenstein. While the EU AI Act has been adopted at the EU level, it has not yet been formally incorporated into the EEA Agreement and is therefore not yet directly applicable in Liechtenstein.

The current regulatory environment is instead defined by Liechtenstein’s commitment to the Council of Europe’s AI Framework Convention (signed in February 2025), which mandates that AI use must protect the right to a fair trial and ensure human oversight.

The fundamental principles of the Liechtenstein Code of Civil Procedure ensure the right to be heard and imply a requirement for human-led adjudication, as judicial tasks are considered personal duties of the appointed judge or arbitrator.

The Law on the Legal Profession stipulates the duty of lawyers to maintain an independent and autonomous professional practice. This prevents the full delegation of legal analysis to AI and ensures that the legal practitioner remains personally responsible for all work products and strategic decisions.

The impact of artificial intelligence on dispute resolution in Liechtenstein is currently the subject of ongoing debate, particularly regarding the tension between procedural efficiency and inherent risks such as algorithmic bias and data security.

Nevertheless, it remains undisputed that the core principles of the legal profession must be upheld. This is true especially for the duty of lawyers to maintain an independent and autonomous practice, as well as the strict preservation of professional secrecy. Furthermore, there is a clear consensus that the evaluative stages of any judicial decision must be strictly reserved for a human judge.

While AI is recognised in certain instances as an auxiliary tool, it needs to be handled with extreme caution to ensure that the Liechtenstein legal framework continues to prioritise human judicial oversight, reasoned accountability, and the absolute protection of client confidentiality.

Looking ahead, we predict that the evolution of AI in Liechtenstein will be characterised by a “controlled modernisation”.

While the jurisdiction is unlikely to resist technological advancement, any integration of AI will be strictly balanced against the fundamental pillars of the Liechtenstein legal system. Specifically, the right to be heard, the principle of the free assessment of evidence by a human judge, and the strict maintenance of official and professional duties remain of paramount importance. Consequently, we anticipate that AI will continue to be treated solely as an auxiliary tool, ensuring that the core evaluative judicial functions and standards of professional conduct remain a human endeavour, thus preserving the high standards of due process and confidentiality that define the jurisdiction.