|
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||
|
Suit | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|||
|
|
||
 |
This is a totally new situation for Germany: The Federal Republic faces an action at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a sole respondent for the first time ever - in proceedings brought by a state which has good relations with Germany but believes that its statehood is being disregarded and the property rights of its citizens violated. By accusing Germany of infringing international law, the Principality of Liechtenstein is taking the last diplomatic resort available to it. Some two years of consultations with German government bodies, including the Federal Chancellery, the Foreign Office and the Federal Ministries of Finance and Justice, have failed to yield any result. Now it will be up to the International Court of Justice, the United Nations' principal judicial organ, to reach a decision in order to close an unfinished chapter of German post-war history. In filing this application, Liechtenstein is relying on the law and its institutions and trusts that its generally friendly relationship with Germany shall in no way be impaired. The dispute centres on the treatment of property owned by Liechtenstein citizens situated in former Czechoslovakia. A deeper point at issue is the question whether the State of Liechtenstein - a sovereign state since 1806 and recognized as neutral by all parties to both world wars - should be considered along with its citizens as part of the German nation. This is how the Czech government has chosen to interpret the law, and it has also been the position of the German courts and the federal government since mid-1990s. Thus the statehood of the Principality of Liechtenstein, never before in dispute, and the nationality of its citizens have both been called into question. Expropriation of Liechtenstein property Background of the case: Numerous Liechtenstein citizens, including the family of the present ruler, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, owned extensive real estate, industrial property and works of art in pre-war Czechoslovakia, mostly in what is now the Czech Republic but partly also in the present Slovak Republic. Largely out of solidarity with pre-war Czechoslovakia, Liechtenstein is one of the few states that have never recognized the 1938 Munich Agreement between Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, which required Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland to the German Reich. From 1945 onwards, Liechtenstein property in Czechoslovakia was confiscated by the new rulers under the "Beneš Decrees". The then Czechoslovak government justified this expropriation of property without compensation by claiming that Liechtenstein, and hence its citizens, formed part of the German nation. The Principality of Liechtenstein and its subjects thus came within the scope of the expropriation decrees that applied to former German and Hungarian citizens in Czechoslovakia. Liechtenstein's neutrality was never in dispute It is central to an understanding of the overall legal situation that the victorious powers in World War II never concluded a formal peace treaty with Germany. After the war was over, they helped themselves, partly by expropriating German property on foreign territory. In the "Settlement Convention" concluded in 1955 with France, the United Kingdom and the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany recognizes the unilateral actions taken by the victorious powers and undertakes to pay compensation to those whose property was confiscated for reparations purposes. If the parties to this Convention did indeed hold the view that the victorious powers were entitled to confiscate neutral Liechtenstein property as reparations for the war - by treating it as if it were German "enemy" property - this would also commit the Federal Republic of Germany to compensate the Liechtenstein subjects whose assets had been expropriated. Yet in fact, until recently the Federal Republic of Germany and the Principality of Liechtenstein were in agreement that the reparation clauses in the Settlement Convention did not apply to Liechtenstein property. On that basis, Liechtenstein also refrained from claiming any compensation from the Federal Republic. 1990s - change in Germany's position Much later in the mid-1990s, however, German courts denied legal redress in a dispute involving a painting from the collection of the Liechtenstein royal family which had been thought to have gone missing after the end of World War II but reappeared 45 years later in a Cologne exhibition. The courts based their ruling on the terms of the Settlement Convention covering war reparations. In a decision dated 28 January 1998, the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed the judgements of the lower courts and ruled that Liechtenstein property was considered to be "German external assets" which could be used towards payment of German war reparations. In other words, Germany holds the view that Liechtenstein property may be used to settle German war-reparation debts to what is now the Czech Republic, despite the fact that Liechtenstein was a sovereign state that was neutral during World War II and at no time involved in World War II nor in the reparation regime of the allied and associated powers. Neither the official protest subsequently lodged by the Principality of Liechtenstein nor some two years of consultations between the two states via civil servants and experts have produced any satisfactory result. On the basis of the Federal Constitutional Court's decision, Germany denies any liability under international law. The Principality of Liechtenstein maintains that Germany is violating its rights of sovereignty and neutrality. It believes the German attitude, which is contrary to international law, does not only apply to the painting by the Dutch master van Laer from the royal family's collection (which triggered the dispute that went all the way to the Federal Constitutional Court), but to all the property of Liechtenstein and its citizens on the territory of former Czechoslovakia. The ICJ has jurisdiction Liechtenstein takes the view that the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction on the basis of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of 1957. This Convention came into force between Germany and Liechtenstein on 18 February 1980. The action brought by Liechtenstein falls within the time period covered by the Convention, since the sole object of the dispute is the legal position towards Liechtenstein which Germany adopted for the first time in the mid-1990s, and the resulting violation of international law on Germany's part. Chronology of the action - June 2001: Liechtenstein files an application against Germany on the grounds of continual violation of international law. - March 2002: Liechtenstein submits to the Court the so-called "Memorial", its written statement of the claim. - June 2002: Germany challenges the admissibility of the action and submits the so-called "Preliminary Objections". - November 2002: In its pleading ("Observations"), Liechtenstein rejects the arguments put forward by Germany as not valid. - 14-18 June 2004: In an oral hearing before the ICJ, the admissibility of the action is tried by the Court. - 10 February 2005: The ICJ decides on the admissibility of the action. Additional information:
The International Court of Justice published Germany's objections and Liechtenstein's replication on the Court's website.
On 22 June 2001 the International Court of Justice in The Hague published the text of the suit being filed by the Principality of Liechtenstein against the Federal Republic of Germany. The original text of the lawsuit is contained in the following:
On 28 March 2002 the Principality of Liechtenstein submits the grounds for its application against the Federal Republic of Germany to the International Court of Justice in The Hague In June 2002, the Federal Republic of Germany raises objections to the admissibility of the action: the so-called "Preliminary Objections".
The Principality of Liechtenstein's response to the Federal Republic of Germany's objections to the admissibility of the action takes the form of a written statement, the so-called "Observations".
Press release of 27 May 2004 to announce the time schedule of the oral hearing between 14 June and 18 June 2004
Press release of 16 March 2004 to announce the oral hearing to be held from 14 to 18 June 2004 with respect to the objections raised by Germany concerning the admissibility of the case
Press release dated July 26, 2002 announcing the period granted for a response to the Federal Republic of Germany's objections to the admissibility of the action.
Press release dated June 29, 2001 announcing the period granted for the justification of the lawsuit.
Press release issued by the International Court of Justice in The Hague when the suit was filed on 1 June 2001 |
||
