I INTRODUCTION

i General background

The Principality of Liechtenstein is a comparatively small state in the middle of Central Europe.2 The most important economic sectors in terms of contribution to GDP are industry and the services sector, in particular the financial services sector.3 With respect to the latter, 15 banks, 38 insurance companies, 109 asset managers, 146 trust companies and 199 lawyers

were registered in the Principality of Liechtenstein at the end of 2017. Moreover, at the end of 2016, 24,496 foundations, trusts and establishments were either registered or deposited with the Liechtenstein Commercial Register.

Liechtenstein's economic success story is in particular attributable to its geographic location in the heart of Europe, its vicinity to Switzerland with which it entered into a customs and currency union, its membership in the European Economic Area, its highly developed banking and financial sector, its rapidly developing tax treaty network and its liberal company and tax legislation, which is in full compliance with the European standards.4

The most important piece of Liechtenstein company legislation is the Persons and Companies Act (PGR), which was enacted in 1926.5 The PGR introduced, among others, the foundation, the establishment and the Anglo-Saxon trust into Liechtenstein law. In 1928, provisions on business trusts were enacted,6 modelled on the basis of the Massachusetts Business Trust. In 2009, the law on foundations was completely revised.7

The importance of the industrial and financial services sectors, and in particular of legal and fiduciary service providers who advise, represent or administer thousands of legal entities and trusts the vast majority of which do have a nexus to at least one foreign jurisdiction, was also one of the main drivers with respect to the development of the Liechtenstein law on arbitration.

ii Rules on civil procedure and recent reform of the law on arbitration

The Liechtenstein law on arbitration forms part of the Liechtenstein Code of Civil Procedure (the Liechtenstein CCP'). The rules on arbitration are set out in Sections 594–635 of the Liechtenstein CCP (see detailed description of the structure of the law below).

iii General introduction

The Liechtenstein CCP was enacted in 1912.8 Its provisions were modelled upon the corresponding provisions of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (the Austrian CCP), the origin of which dates back to 1895. Since then, the provisions of the law on arbitration were only amended once.9 As the Liechtenstein CCP is modelled upon the Austrian CCP, Austrian case law and Austrian legal literature are usually referred to in decisions taken by the Liechtenstein courts in relation to the Liechtenstein CCP.

Liechtenstein has for many years abstained from entering into bilateral or multilateral agreements on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitral awards, with the exception of Austria and Switzerland with which Liechtenstein has concluded bilateral agreements to that effect.10 The primary reason for such abstention was the concern that the conclusion of such agreements could jeopardise the asset protection and estate planning business of fiduciary service providers.11

With a view to overcoming this isolationist attitude, the Liechtenstein government in its programme for the legislative period from 2005 until 2009 deemed it imperative to consider the accession of Liechtenstein to the New York Convention. But as a precondition for the accession to the New York Convention, the Liechtenstein government deemed a reform of the Liechtenstein law on arbitration to be indispensable. The reform should be based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, as amended in 2006. The new rules should be applicable to both national and international arbitral proceedings, and should not only govern traditional commercial disputes.12

Liechtenstein's endeavours gained momentum following the reform of the Austrian law on arbitration. The Austrian parliament had amended the corresponding provisions of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure,13 which were themselves modelled upon the UNCITRAL Model Law. The reform of the Austrian CCP had entered into effect on 1 July 2006.

The revised Liechtenstein law on arbitration finally became effective on 1 November 2010.14 The main features of the reform included (1) the new regulation of the (objective) arbitrability of disputes, (2) the introduction of a provision on the effects of the pendency of arbitral proceedings, (3) the creation of new rules on the power of the arbitral tribunal to order interim or protective measures and on its authority to rule on its own jurisdiction by way of an arbitral award, (4) the revision of the grounds for the nullification of arbitral awards, and (5) the introduction of protective provisions for disputes involving consumers and for employment law matters.

iv The structure of the Arbitration Law

As for the structure of the new Liechtenstein Arbitration Law, the new provisions are contained in Section 8 of the Fifth Part of the Liechtenstein CCP (Sections 594–635).

v National and international arbitration

As a matter of principle, the Arbitration Law applies to all arbitral proceedings if the seat of the arbitration is in Liechtenstein. The Arbitration Law does not make a distinction between international and national arbitration. However, Section 594 Paragraph 2 of the Liechtenstein CCP provides that some provisions of Section 8 of the Fifth Part of the Liechtenstein CCP will also apply if the seat of the arbitration is not in Liechtenstein or has not yet been determined.

Among these provisions are those governing the intervention of the ordinary courts (Section 595 Liechtenstein CCP), the receipt of written communications (Section 597 Liechtenstein CCP), the form of the arbitration agreement (Section 600 of the Liechtenstein CCP), arbitration and substantive claim before the ordinary court (Section 601 of the Liechtenstein CCP), arbitration and interim measures by the ordinary court (Section 602 of the Liechtenstein CCP), the power of the arbitral tribunal to order interim measures (Section 610 Paragraph 3–6 of the Liechtenstein CCP), the assistance by the ordinary court in taking evidence (Section 619 of the Liechtenstein CCP), the declaration of the existence or non-existence of arbitral award (Section 629 of the Liechtenstein CCP), and the assertion of grounds for nullification in other proceedings (Section 630 of the Liechtenstein CCP).

vi Arbitrability of disputes

Among the new provisions on arbitration, the provision of Section 599 of the Liechtenstein CCP on the arbitrability of disputes deserves particular attention.

Pursuant to Section 599 of the Liechtenstein CCP, any claim involving an economic interest 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 nevertheless has 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 (Liechtenstein Legal Gazette No. 103/2008) are not arbitrable (Section 599 Paragraph 2 of the Liechtenstein CCP).

Section 599 Paragraph 3 of the 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 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 statutes or similar constitutional documents of a corporate entity or a foundation or trust.

Against the background of the above, it is undisputed that all commercial disputes are arbitrable. The issue is, however, whether and to what extent also non-commercial disputes involving corporations, foundations or trusts are also arbitrable in principle.15

With respect to corporations, Article 114 Paragraph 2 of the PGR provides that the legal venue for the adjudication of disputes between a corporation and its members (i.e., shareholders) in relation to their membership in the corporation, as well as for the adjudication of disputes involving creditors' claims in relation to directors and officers liability, dissolution or the like, is the place in which such corporation is domiciled, even if the statutes of such corporation provide for arbitration. The Liechtenstein Supreme Court has held that also disputes referred to under Article 114 Paragraph 2 PGR are arbitrable,16 a legal position also supported by legal literature.17 It is the general view that the only limit imposed by Article 114 Paragraph 2 PGR is that whenever the statutes of a corporation provide for arbitration, the seat of the arbitration must be where the corporate entity has its domicile.

In relation to disputes involving Liechtenstein trusts, the relevant provisions of the PGR do not contain an express provision on the arbitrability of disputes involving Liechtenstein trusts. However, Article 931 sub-paragraph 2 PGR provides for the mandatory jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to arbitrate disputes between the settlor, the trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. From that, part of legal literature concludes that it must all the more be permitted to agree on the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in matters that relate to Liechtenstein domestic trusts.18

As for disputes involving Liechtenstein foundations, the Liechtenstein Supreme Court held that claims aiming at the dismissal of members of the foundation council (the supreme body of a Liechtenstein foundation) are not arbitrable.19 While this judgment has been widely discussed and also criticised in legal literature,20 it is the Liechtenstein courts' position that claims aiming at the instigation of supervisory measures are not arbitrable. Such claims not only include claims for dismissal of members of foundation bodies but also claims seeking to declare resolutions made by the foundation council as being invalid. All other disputes between foundation participants and the foundation and among foundation participants in relation to the foundation are in principle arbitrable, including disputes on information rights of beneficiaries, interpretation of foundation deeds and claims by the foundation against its bodies.21

vii Judicial assistance in evidence gathering for arbitration proceedings

Pursuant to Section 595 of the Liechtenstein CCP, a court may only become active to the extent provided in the section of the Liechtenstein CCP governing arbitral proceedings. In relation to the gathering of evidence, Section 616 of the Liechtenstein CCP provides that it is the arbitral tribunal that has the authority to decide on the admission of evidence, on the respective procedure and the free assessment of its outcome.

The arbitral tribunal, one specifically authorised member of such arbitral tribunal or a party with prior consent of the arbitral tribunal may apply to the court for the court to become active in matters which the arbitral tribunal is not authorised to deal with (Section 619 of the Liechtenstein CCP). Such requests for legal assistance include applications to the local court to apply to a foreign court or authority to conduct the requested measure.

viii The ratification of the New York Convention

On 7 July 2011, Liechtenstein ratified the New York Convention. It entered into force on 5 October 2011. Liechtenstein's neighbouring countries, Austria and Switzerland, both of which host important arbitration centres, had acceded to the Convention already in 1961 and 1965 respectively. By acceding to the New York Convention, Liechtenstein sought to make Liechtenstein more attractive as a seat for arbitral proceedings, in particular given its other competitive advantages.22

Liechtenstein has, however, made a reservation in the context of the accession to the Convention, in that it will only apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards that were made in another Contracting State on the basis of reciprocity. As long as the condition of reciprocity is fulfilled, Liechtenstein will recognise and enforce arbitral awards made in another contracting state irrespective of whether the substance of the underlying dispute was of a commercial or non-commercial nature.

As a result of the accession to the Convention, the historical protective measures that had been implemented by Liechtenstein to provide shelter against the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards ceased to be effective.23

ix The Liechtenstein Rules

Despite the enactment of the revised law on arbitration and the accession to the New York Convention, Liechtenstein still did not offer the possibility to resolve arbitral disputes in the context of institutionalised arbitral proceedings.

To overcome this deficiency, a number of Liechtenstein attorneys experienced in both litigation and arbitral proceedings established the Liechtenstein Arbitration Association.

The purposes of the Liechtenstein Arbitration Association as set out in its Articles of Association24 include, among others, the 'further development and promotion of arbitration in Liechtenstein and of arbitration under Liechtenstein law', the 'preparation of rules of arbitration', and the 'examination of laws and proposed amendments'. With the assistance of Swiss special counsel, 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).25

If the Rules are made applicable by parties to arbitral proceedings, the LCCI assumes the role of the arbitral institution administering arbitral proceedings conducted under the Rules that do have their seat in Liechtenstein. The LCCI appoints a secretary for arbitration and two deputies. The secretary, together with the two deputies, form the secretariat. For specific arbitral proceedings, a commissioner must be appointed by the secretariat upon request of a party. The commissioner assumes responsibilities under the Liechtenstein Rules whenever these Rules have assigned a specific task to him or her. His decisions are of an administrative nature only and are not subject to appeal (Article 32.5 of the Liechtenstein Rules).

While Liechtenstein cannot effectively compete with other arbitration centres like London, Zurich, Vienna, Singapore or Hong Kong, it was the clear objective to create a set of arbitration rules flexible enough to be attractive for both, the resolution of traditional international commercial disputes and the resolution of disputes involving beneficial or other interests in Liechtenstein structures such as foundations, trusts and establishments, and to create a niche which has thus far not been occupied by any other arbitration centre.26

The Liechtenstein Rules were primarily modelled on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and on the Swiss Rules from which, however, they deviate in some respects.27

For example, the Liechtenstein Rules do not contain provisions on introductory proceedings. Therefore, they do also not contain provisions on terms of reference. Furthermore, third parties can only be joined in arbitral proceedings conducted under the Liechtenstein Rules with the consent of all parties to the arbitral proceedings (deviation from Article 4.2 of the Swiss Rules). Also, there is no joinder of proceedings against the will of all parties (deviation from Article 4.1 of the Swiss Rules).

A further procedural feature of the Liechtenstein Rules is that the provisions on discovery have been streamlined to avoid extensive US-style discovery in arbitral proceedings. Instead, the Liechtenstein Rules make reference to the much more restrictive provisions of the Liechtenstein Code of Civil Procedure (Section 303 et seq. Liechtenstein CCP).

The Liechtenstein Rules in 16.3 also contain a very pragmatic approach to set-off defences. While the arbitral tribunal in principle has jurisdiction to hear such a defence, it may refuse to do if to hear such defences would delay or complicate the proceedings, or justifiable interests of the other party so require.

Furthermore, after the arbitral tribunal has constituted itself, the parties may not apply for injunctive or interim relief with a court unless the arbitral tribunal consents. This is a precautionary measure to prevent the circumvention of confidentiality provisions by the parties.28

One unique feature of the Liechtenstein Rules is their provisions governing confidentiality, as the Liechtenstein Rules have been drafted with a view to also be applied in relation to disputes involving fiduciary structures such as foundations, trusts or establishments, in which confidentiality is usually of utmost importance.

The main features of the provisions on the preservation of the principle of confidentiality in arbitral proceedings under the Liechtenstein Rules can be summarised as follows.

First, Article 6 of the Liechtenstein Rules imposes certain eligibility conditions on arbitrators. In principle, 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). The parties to the arbitral proceedings may, however, waive this condition. If nominated, the nominee has to confirm that he or she satisfies this eligibility condition.

Article 29 of the Liechtenstein Rules deals with specific confidentiality aspects in no less than eight paragraphs. First, the scope of the confidentiality obligation extends to (1) all awards and orders, (2) all materials submitted, and (3) all facts made available by other participants in the arbitral proceedings. The confidentiality obligation extends to the parties themselves, their representatives, experts, the arbitrators, any commissioner, the secretariat and their auxiliary personnel. Again, however, the parties may waive these confidentiality obligations. Second, the arbitral tribunal in case of specific needs for confidentiality may make documents accessible to an expert 'without granting the other parties access to these documents' (Article 29.3 of the Liechtenstein Rules).

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 29.4 of the Liechtenstein Rules, the parties, their representatives, the arbitrators and any commissioner shall take appropriate organisational measures to safeguard the confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings, including, for example, encryption of email correspondence.

The obligation to preserve confidentiality does not terminate upon the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. The violation of confidentiality in arbitral proceedings under the Liechtenstein Rules results in a contractual penalty payable of 50,000 Swiss francs for each violation (Article 29.7 of the Liechtenstein Rules). A provision on such contractual penalties in rules of arbitration is not only innovative but also quite unique.

As an additional feature, the Liechtenstein Rules do contain a number of sample arbitration clauses. Among them not only arbitration clauses for contractual disputes, but also arbitration clauses for disputes involving trusts, foundations and companies.

II THE YEAR IN REVIEW

With effect from 1 August 2017, the Liechtenstein law on arbitration was amended. This amendment related to the provisions governing arbitral disputes involving consumers. Furthermore, a number of decisions were rendered by the Liechtenstein courts relating to the arbitrability of disputes as well as to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

i Consumer arbitration29

When Liechtenstein introduced the Austrian amendments to the law of arbitration into the Liechtenstein CCP, it also transposed the provision of Section 617 of the Austrian CCP governing the protection of consumers into Liechtenstein law. Pursuant to Section 617 Paragraph 1 of the Austrian CCP, an arbitration agreement with a consumer may only be entered into after a dispute has already arisen. Furthermore, such arbitration agreement must be contained in a separate document that does not form part of the main contract (Section 617 Paragraph 2 Austrian CCP). The Austrian Supreme Court in 6 Ob 43/13m held that also shareholders of a corporation can qualify as consumers and that, therefore, arbitration agreements concluded by and between them are also subject to the strict limitations of Section 617 Austrian CCP.

The Liechtenstein government when proposing the amendment to the Liechtenstein CCP in 2010 had anticipated the issue as such but has concluded in the preparatory materials that Section 617 of the Austrian CCP would only apply to classic consumer contracts. However, the wording of the law did not support that position.

Following the Austrian Supreme Court judgment, Liechtenstein amended the corresponding provision of the Liechtenstein CCP, as otherwise, the rules on consumer protection would have rendered the provisions on arbitration inapplicable in all corporate disputes in which one or more of the shareholders of the respective corporation (or beneficiaries of a foundation) are natural persons.

The new rules (Section 634 Paragraph 2 Liechtenstein CCP) exempt arbitration agreements and arbitration clauses contained in statutes, corporate agreements, foundation deeds or trust deeds or supplementary deeds from the restrictions that otherwise apply to arbitration agreements with natural persons.

However, despite the equal treatment in principle of purely corporate arbitration agreements and arbitration agreements in corporate matters involving also natural persons, there is a difference when it comes to grounds for nullification. An arbitral award in proceedings involving a natural person must be nullified if it violates international mandatory provisions (Section 634 Paragraph 3 Liechtenstein CCP that corresponds to Section 617 Paragraph 6 sub-paragraph 1 of the Austrian CCP).30

ii Arbitration developments in local courts

Interpretation and enforcement of arbitration clauses31

A claimant in arbitral proceedings had asserted three claims against a Liechtenstein foundation of which he claimed to be a collator: (1) payment of a certain amount of cash plus interest for services rendered to the foundation as a collator, (2) a declaratory judgment that he is (still) a collator of the foundation, and (3) the rendering of accounts and the providing of information to claimant in his capacity as collator of the foundation. The foundation as defendant in the arbitral proceedings filed a statement of defence and claimed that the arbitral tribunal would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims and that arbitral proceedings would not be the proper proceedings to deal with such claims. Under the terms of the arbitration clause which formed part of the statutes of the foundation, 'disputes of all kind resulting from the foundation relation shall be decided by an arbitral tribunal consisting of three members to the exclusion of the ordinary courts'.

The arbitral tribunal in an interim award on its jurisdiction held that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate all of the asserted claims. The foundation subsequently filed a nullification action with the Liechtenstein court based on the Section 628 Paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 1 (lack of agreement to arbitrate), 3 (the contested award relates to a dispute in relation to which an agreement to arbitrate is invalid) and 7 (the merits of the dispute are not arbitrable under the laws of Liechtenstein) of the Liechtenstein CCP.

The Liechtenstein court held that the substantive scope of an arbitration clause needs to be determined by taking reasonable principles of interpretation into consideration, including the extensive interpretation of the arbitration clause, with a view to foster the pursuance of the purpose of said clause. If the arbitration clause provides that 'disputes of whatsoever nature resulting from the foundation relation' shall be subject to arbitration, then the scope of that clause extends to any and all disputes between the foundation and its participants (the term 'foundation participants' pursuant to Article 552 Section 3 PGR comprises the founder, the foundation's beneficiaries (including members of a class of beneficiaries and holders of an expectancy), as well as the foundation's bodies and their respective members, hence also – such as in the case at hand – a collator) including disputes between the foundation and its collator. The court further held that disputes under foundation law principles that are to be dealt with in contentious proceedings before ordinary courts can always be made subject to arbitration. This would also include claims for a declaratory arbitral award relating to the determination of the membership in a foundation body (such as a collator).

Therefore, all of the claims that had formed part of the arbitral proceedings were held to be arbitrable, all the more so as the claimant in the arbitral proceedings did not pursue any claim that would have aimed at the instigation of supervisory proceedings.

Non-arbitrability of claims aiming at instigation of supervisory proceedings32

Also in another case, the Supreme Court held that if a foundation participant (such as a beneficiary) of a foundation that is not subject to the supervision of the Liechtenstein Foundation Supervisory Authority files an application with the court in non-contentious proceedings demanding the rescission of a by-law or regulation, the remedy sought by such foundation participant is the instigation of supervisory proceedings by the court, as a result of which the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, so that the matter may not be arbitrated.

ii Enforcement or annulment of awards33

Pursuant to Section 631 of the Liechtenstein CCP, the recognition and declaration of enforceability of foreign arbitral awards are governed by the provisions of the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act.34

Based on an arbitral award rendered by the London Court of International Arbitration in favour of the claimant in the arbitral proceedings, the claimant filed an application with the Liechtenstein court requesting the declaration of enforceability of the arbitral award and a levy of execution on certain claims of the judgment debtor, the obligated party.

The Liechtenstein court granted the application, declared the arbitral award to be enforceable in Liechtenstein and granted levy of execution against the claims of the obligated party. The obligated party filed an appeal against both decisions of the Liechtenstein court.

The Liechtenstein court of appeals granted the obligated party's application and dismissed the applicant's application to declare the arbitral award enforceable. The court of appeals held that the Liechtenstein Enforcement Act did not contain provisions on a separate proceeding with respect to the declaration of enforceability of foreign arbitral awards. Hence, a judgment creditor could file an application for enforcement of the arbitral award directly based on the foreign arbitral award. The question of the enforceability of such an award would then have to be dealt with as a preliminary question of the granting of the levy of execution.

The judgment creditor appealed this decision of the court of appeals. The Liechtenstein Supreme Court declared the appeal to be permissible, but dismissed it on substantive grounds.

Hence, neither the recognition nor the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award are to be decided in a separate proceeding under the Liechtenstein CCP, but instead in proceedings under the Enforcement Act that, however, does not provide for separate exequatur proceedings. Rather, the Execution Act qualifies the issue of enforceability as a preliminary question to the grant of a levy of execution.35

iii Investor–state disputes

Liechtenstein is not a member of the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Members of other Contracting States, hence there are no cases to report under that Convention.

III OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

By modifying the provisions on arbitral proceedings in the Liechtenstein Code of Civil Procedure and by acceding to the New York Convention, Liechtenstein adapted to international standards. However, the mere implementation of international standards without anything more would not have been sufficient to make Liechtenstein an attractive seat for arbitral proceedings in the long run, in particular in cases involving foundations and trusts. It is the Liechtenstein Rules with some of their very innovative and attractive features which might be a decisive factor in favour of agreeing on the application of the Liechtenstein Rules in arbitral proceedings.

The new provisions on arbitral proceedings are relatively young. As, however, these provisions have been modelled upon the corresponding provisions of the Austrian CCP, Austrian case law and legal literature can be relied upon when interpreting the corresponding Liechtenstein provisions, which increases the degree of predictability of court decisions and therefore the degree of legal certainty.36

The extent to which Liechtenstein will be chosen as venue for arbitral proceedings will finally depend on the qualification and skills of the arbitrators and of Liechtenstein counsel to the parties involved in the respective dispute.


Footnotes

1 Mario A König is a partner at Marxer & Partner Rechtsanwälte.

2 Liechtenstein is the sixth smallest state in the world; see Liechtenstein in Figures 2018, p. 5 .

3 Liechtenstein in Figures 2018, p. 19; see also Liechtenstein Statistical Yearbook 2017, p. 163 et seq.

4 See (in particular) EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 15 February 2011 on Private Investment Structures Liechtenstein, Doc. Number 44/11/COL.

5 Persons and Companies Act of 20 January 1926, Liechtenstein Legal Gazette 4/1926 (PGR).

6 Article 932 a PGR.

7 The revised Law on Foundations entered into effect on 1 April 2009, Liechtenstein Legal Gazette 220/2008 of 26 June 2008.

8 Liechtenstein Legal Gazette No. 9/1/1912.

9 Liechtenstein Legal Gazette No. 134/2003.

10 Agreement between the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judicial Decisions and Arbitral Awards in Civil Matters; Liechtenstein Legal Gazette No. 14/1970 of 20 March 1970; Agreement between the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Republic of Austria on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judicial Decisions, Arbitral Awards, Settlements and Public Deeds; Liechtenstein Legal Gazette No. 20/1975 of 5 March 1975.

11 CZERNICH, Dietmar, Das neue Schiedsverfahrensrecht in Liechtenstein, in: RIW, 11/2012, p. 751 et seq., p. 753; see also CZERNICH, Dietmar, Das New Yorker Schiedsübereinkommen und die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in Stiftungssachen, in: LJZ 06.2012, p. 59 et seq.

12 Bericht und Antrag der Regierung an den Landtag des Fürstentums Liechtenstein betreffend die Totalrevision des schiedsrichterlichen Verfahrens, No. 151/2008 of 28 Ocober 2008, p 9.; MAYR, Peter, Das neue Schiedsverfahrensrecht in Liechtenstein – Teil 1, in: Jus & News 2010/3, p. 297 et seq., p. 299.

13 SchiedsRÄG 2006 BGBl. I 2006/7.

14 Liechtenstein Legal Gazette No. 182/2010 of 13 July 2010.

15 Gasser, Johannes, Nueber, Michael, Arbitration of Foundation and Trust Disputes in Liechtenstein, in: Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration, 2018, p. 25 et seq., p. 26;

16 Gasser, Johannes, Das neue Schiedsverfahren in Liechtenstein und die Auswirkungen auf die Stiftungspraxis, in: PSR 2012/33, p. 109 et seq., p. 112.

17 Schumacher, Hubertus, Das neue Schiedsverfahren, in: LJZ 09/2011, p. 105 et seq.

18 Gasser, Johannes, Das neue Schiedsverfahren in Liechtenstein und die Auswirkungen auf die Stiftungspraxis, in: PSR 2012/33, p. 109 et seq., p. 114, 115.

19 Liechtenstein Supreme Court, Doc.-No. 05.HG.2011.28 (LES 2011, 187).

20 Gasser, Johannes, Das neue Schiedsverfahren in Liechtenstein und die Auswirkungen auf die Stiftungspraxis, in: PSR 2012/33, p. 109 et seq., p. 112.; Gasser, Johannes, Nueber, Michael, Arbitration of Foundation and Trust Disputes in Liechtenstein, in: Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration, 2018, p. 25 et seq., p. 26, p. 27; Reithner, Nicolas, Blasy Moritz, Aufsichtsverfahren, Schiedsfähigkeit, Section 599 ZPO und der Entscheid des OGH 05 HG.2011.28 (LES 2011, 187), in: LJZ 03.2012, p. 26 et seq. See, however, Wolff, Peter, Abberufungsverfahren vor dem Schiedsgericht, in: 5. Liechtensteinischer Stiftungsrechtstag, p. 173 et seq., p. 178, 179, taking a different view.

21 Gasser, Johannes, Nueber, Michael, Arbitration of Foundation and Trust Disputes in Liechtenstein, in: Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration, 2018, p. 25 et seq., p. 34 with further references.

22 Bericht und Antrag der Regierung an den Landtag des Fürstentums Liechtenstein betreffend das Übereinkommen über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Schiedssprüche; No. 47/2011 of 26 April 2011.

23 CZERNICH, Dietmar, Das neue Schiedsverfahrensrecht in Liechtenstein, in: RIW, 11/2012, p. 753.

25 Dasser, Felix, Reithner, Nicolas, Die Liechtensteinische Schiedsordnung (Liechtenstein Rules), Bern (2013); Gasser, Johannes, Nueber, Michael, Arbitration Of Foundation And Trust Disputes In Liechtenstein, in: Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration, 2018, p. 25 et seq., p. 30 et seq.

26 Dasser, Felix, Die Liechtenstein Rules – Was bringen sie den Stiftungen?, in: Band des 5. Liechtensteinischen Stiftungsrechtstages 2012, p. 159 et seq., 160.

27 Dasser, Felix, Die Liechtenstein Rules – Was bringen sie den Stiftungen?, in: Band des 5. Liechtensteinischen Stiftungsrechtstages 2012, p. 163-165.

28 Dasser, Felix, Die Liechtenstein Rules – Was bringen sie den Stiftungen?, in: Band des 5. Liechtensteinischen Stiftungsrechtstages 2012, p. 159 et seq.

29 See for a discussion of the rules on consumer protection of the Austrian CCP and the Liechtenstein CCP: Reithner Nicolas, Ehlich, Gabriele, Consumer Protection in Arbitration Proceedings in Liechtenstein, in: Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration, 2016, p. 21 et seq.

30 See Czernich, Das neue Schiedsrecht für Gesellschafterstreitigkeiten in Liechtenstein, ecolex 2018, p. 238 et seq.

31 Case Docket Number SO.2017.1 OG; LES 2017, 216.

32 Case Docket Number 05 HG.2015.123 OGH; LES 2016, 66; GE 2017, 92.

33 Case Docket Number 08 EX.2016.839 OGH; LES 2017, 173.

34 Liechtenstein Legal Gazette No. 32-2/1972.

35 08 EX.2016.839 of 7 September 2017 (LES 2017, 173).

36 See also Gasser, Das neue Schiedsverfahren in Liechtenstein und die Auswirkungen in der Stiftungspraxis, PSR 2012/03, p. 111.