Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Handbook of EEA Law pp 331–345Cite as

Liechtenstein Chamber of Lawyers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1246 Accesses

Abstract

Accession to the EEA inaugurated a change from a closure to foreign influence to an opening of the Liechtenstein economy—including the Chamber of Lawyers. Contrary to the fears many members of the Chamber had had during the referendum campaign for the EEA, in 1995 Liechtenstein was not overrun by foreign lawyers, competitors or companies. Liechtenstein is a country with numerous business contacts all over Europe, which entails the necessity of legal support for industry, financial intermediaries and other service providers. Liechtenstein lawyers profit from open markets and from the harmonisation and coordination of important fields of law. The possibility to refer questions to the EFTA Court is being used by courts quite regularly as lawyers make clear reference in their submissions if a decision is deemed to be against EEA law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Office of Statistics, Liechtenstein in Figures 2014, p. 22.

  2. 2.

    To do so, the Government first had to invoke the safeguard clause in Article 112 EEA in 1996 before a compromise could be found with the EEA partners. The Government’s application of the safeguard clause was then unsuccessfully contested before the State Court by a person wanting to move to Liechtenstein . For a very illustrative discussion, see: Judgment of the State Court of 28.09.1999, StGH 1998/56, published in: LES 2000, 107 (Heft 3).

  3. 3.

    See ‘Bericht 15 Jahre Mitgliedschaft des Fürstentums Liechtenstein im EWR (BuA Nr. 017/2010),’ in which the Liechtenstein Government gave a positive report to Parliament on 15 years of membership in the EEA in 2010.

  4. 4.

    Liechtenstein went through two popular votes to join the EEA. The first popular vote took place in December 1992 shortly after Switzerland had rejected accession to the EEA. Despite the ‘no’ vote of Liechtenstein’s important neighbour, Liechtenstein voted yes. Consequently, various aspects had to be negotiated with both Switzerland and the partners in the EEA, since Liechtenstein enjoyed and continues to enjoy economic and many other ties with Switzerland through the Customs Treaty and other arrangements. With this package of adjustments to the Customs Treaty and amendments to the original EEA acquis, the Liechtenstein people were once again persuaded in the second popular vote in April 1995. See: Volksabstimmung vom 7./9. April 1995 über die Teilnahme Liechtensteins am Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum (EWR). Nr. 14/1995.

  5. 5.

    For the directives transposed each year and the transposition rate, see the Internal Market Scoreboard regularly published by ESA.

  6. 6.

    Self-employment among lawyers has become more attractive in Austria since the late 1990s due to dwindling opportunities, especially in public service. Since the number of employment relationships did not grow to the same extent as the number of lawyers, more and more lawyers had to work on a self-employed basis. The competitive pressure and accordingly the pressure on financial resources increased. On these developments, see the instructive ‘Branchenbericht: Freie Berufe’ of Bank Austria in the year 2012, pp. 9 et seq. (Wolf 2012).

  7. 7.

    Lawyers Act of 8 November 2013 (RAG), LGBl. 2013 No. 415.

  8. 8.

    All references are to the Liechtenstein Lawyers’ Act (‘RAG’).

  9. 9.

    See also Case C-225/09 Edyta Joanna Jakubowska v. Alessandro Maneggia [2010] ECR I 12329. In this judgment, the ECJ confirmed that a national (here: Italian) legal provision specifying that the exercise of the profession of lawyer is incompatible with part-time public service is permissible on grounds of protecting the independence of the lawyer and preventing conflicts of interest.

  10. 10.

    Case C-55/94 Gebhard v. Procuratori Di Milano [1995] ECR I 4165.

  11. 11.

    There are two types of apprentice lawyers. Firstly, candidate lawyers with the right of ‘substitution’ (full representation of the lawyer) who meet all preconditions for admission to the lawyer’s examination and therefore may participate on behalf of the supervising lawyer in proceedings requiring lawyers; and secondly, those who are still in the midst of training and cannot yet be admitted to the lawyer’s examination.

  12. 12.

    Most recently and at the same time consolidated with the previous directives, Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing.

  13. 13.

    Law of 11 December 2008 on Professional Due Diligence to Combat Money Laundering, Organised Crime, and Terrorist Financing (‘Due Diligence Act’ or ‘DDA’).

  14. 14.

    Information is not reported even if relevant to anti-money laundering where lawyers have received the information ‘a) from or on a client in the course of ascertaining the legal position for their client; or b) performing their task of defending or representing that client in or concerning judicial proceedings, including advice on instituting or avoiding proceedings, whether such information is received before, during, or after such proceedings.’

  15. 15.

    See also Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones and Others v. Conseil des ministres [2007] ECR I 5305. In this judgment, the ECJ made clear that the information and cooperation duties of lawyers apply only to the extent that they help their clients engage in certain financial transactions or carry out such transactions on their behalf. This does not apply to judicial proceedings, however, or where the emphasis is on professional secrecy and the right to a fair trial. But as soon as lawyers are mandated for the purpose of advice or representation in court in connection with these transactions, they are exempted from such duties, irrespective of whether the information was obtained before, during, or after the proceedings. Or in the words of the ECJ (para. 32): ‘Lawyers would be unable to carry out satisfactorily their task of advising, defending and representing their clients, who would in consequence be deprived of the rights conferred on them by Article 6 of the ECHR, if lawyers were obliged, in the context of judicial proceedings or the preparation for such proceedings, to cooperate with the authorities by passing them information obtained in the course of related legal consultations.’

  16. 16.

    Clementi (2004), pp. 108–128. From a German perspective, see: Henssler (2007).

  17. 17.

    The relevant provisions are Articles 27 et seq. of the Lawyers Act, Article 40 of the National Administration Act for administrative law, and section 54 and sections 63 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure for civil law. Sections 26–27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant legal aid in criminal matters.

  18. 18.

    Batliner (2004), LJZ, 139 (Heft 4).

  19. 19.

    This principle is also referred to as the ‘success liability principle’ (see, e.g., LES 2010, p. 264), although the term ‘loser pays’ is more self-explanatory. According to most European codes of civil procedure, the loser of a civil case pays all procedural costs incurred. These include the costs of the court itself, i.e., its fees (application fee, session fee, and judgment fee). But they also include the costs incurred by consulting a lawyer. For the calculation of these costs, the Law on the Fee Schedule for Lawyers (‘RATG’) and the associated Ordinance on the Fee Schedule for Lawyers (‘RATV’) are used. See also the remarks on the website of the Chamber of Lawyers : www.lirak.li.

  20. 20.

    Bill of the Government to Parliament on Amendment of the Lawyers Act (Cross-border provision of services), No. 36/2014.

  21. 21.

    Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Criminal Matters (Lugano Convention), Done at Lugano on 30 October 2007. The Lugano Convention was originally concluded in Lugano on 16 September 1988. In the interim, it was developed through case-law. In October 2007, finally, it was revised and successfully entered into force in the individual states in accordance with the respective ratification procedures (Switzerland: 2011).

  22. 22.

    Frick (2005), pp. 275 et seq.; Frick (2010), pp. 106 et seq.

  23. 23.

    State Court judgment of 17 February 2003, in LES 3/2005, pp. 155 et seq., and State Court judgment 2006/94.

  24. 24.

    Bill of the Government to Parliament No. 48/2009. LGBl 2009 Nr. 206.

  25. 25.

    See the official website of the Ministry for Finance at www.regierung.li/en/ministries/ministry-for-general-government-affairs-and-finance/development-of-international-tax-agreements/.

  26. 26.

    Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 Fred. Olsen and Others v. the Norwegian State .

  27. 27.

    The private international law of the European Union is governed by several conflicts of law regulations. These are: Rome I (contractual obligations), Rome II (non-contractual obligations), and Rome III (divorce). See also Rome IV (matrimonial property) and Rome V (succession), which also govern the recognition and enforcement of judgments.

  28. 28.

    But see, at least, the indirect impact of the Succession Regulation on Liechtenstein: Frick (2013), pp. 34 et seq.

  29. 29.

    Law of 19 June 1998 on Public Procurement (‘ÖAWG’).

  30. 30.

    See, for example, Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 Fred. Olsen and Others v. the Norwegian State .

  31. 31.

    For more details. Frick and Baur (2015), pp. 270 ss.

  32. 32.

    Case C-72/09 Etablissements Rimbaud [2010] ECR I 10659.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advocatur Seeger, Frick & Partner AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein

    Mario Frick

Authors
  1. Mario Frick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Frick .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Carl Baudenbacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Frick, M. (2016). Liechtenstein Chamber of Lawyers. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24341-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24343-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation