The Hague, 18 June 2004. Now it is up to the International Court of Justice to de-cide whether the action brought by the Principality of Liechtenstein against the Federal Republic of Germany is admissible and whether the case will proceed to a full hearing. Last week, both parties had the opportunity to explain their positions to the Court.

During the oral hearing, the Principality of Liechtenstein confirmed its opinion that its sovereignty and neutrality was infringed by Germany. In the Principality’s view, Ger-many is treating Liechtenstein property located in the territory of former Czechoslovakia as German external assets which can be used to settle German reparation debts.

The Liechtenstein Counsels, headed by the Special Commissioner and Agent of the Principality, Dr Alexander Goepfert, made it clear before the International Court of Justice that, in their estimation, the UN Court was competent to rule on the German breach of international law.

On Monday and Thursday, Germany invoked in its statements the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Court. The delegation of twelve, headed by the German Ambassa-dor at The Hague, Dr Edmund Duckwitz, and the Director General for legal affairs and international law at the Federal Foreign Office at Berlin, Dr Thomas Läufer, held the view that Liechtenstein’s external assets were confiscated by former Czechoslo-vakia in 1945 under the so-called Benes-Decrees, so that the case brought against Germany was insubstantial and unjustified.

The five Counsels acting for Liechtenstein specified why Germany’s objections on the admissibility of the case were unjustified. They stated that the International Court of Justice has absolute jurisdiction to decide on Liechtenstein’s application on the merits, because Berlin actually used Liechtenstein external assets located in the territory of former Czechoslovakia to settle its reparation debts. As a result of this entirely unjustifiable attitude, Germany obtained an economic advantage.