Overview
The Principality of Liechtenstein has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1978, a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) since 1 May 1995, Schengen-associated since 19 December 2011, and an EFTA member. It is not an EU member state. The European Arrest Warrant does not apply in relations with Liechtenstein. What governs instead are the European Convention on Extradition of 13 Dec 1957 (ECE) and the Liechtenstein Mutual Legal Assistance Act.
Special status — only the First Additional Protocol: Liechtenstein has ratified exclusively the First Additional Protocol to the ECE. The Second, Third and Fourth Additional Protocols do not apply — which has significant consequences in particular for fiscal offenses (see "Country-specific issues").
The volume of extradition traffic between Germany and Liechtenstein is quantitatively small but qualitatively highly selective: the focus lies on proceedings connected to the Liechtenstein financial center (foundations, trusts, asset management), tax-criminal proceedings (e.g. the LGT tax-data complex of 2008), and economic and property crime. Liechtenstein is stable in rule-of-law terms; no human-rights bars to extradition are documented.
Legal basis
Extradition to Liechtenstein is governed by the European Convention on Extradition of 13 Dec 1957 (ECE, BGBl. 1964 II p. 1369) in conjunction with the First Additional Protocol of 15 Oct 1975 (BGBl. 1990 II p. 118). The Second (8 Nov 1978), Third (10 Nov 2010) and Fourth Additional Protocols (20 Sept 2012) are not applicable in relations with Liechtenstein.
Domestically, the IRG applies on the German side (Sections 1 ff. IRG), and on the Liechtenstein side the Act of 15 September 2000 on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Mutual Legal Assistance Act, RHG; LGBl. 2000 No. 215). In its Sections 11 ff., the RHG contains the Liechtenstein extradition provisions and supplements the ECE in bilateral traffic.
On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts are competent in the admissibility proceedings (Sections 13 ff. IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Office, and in matters of principle by the BfJ. On the Liechtenstein side, the Office of Justice (Amt für Justiz) is the central authority for international mutual legal assistance; competence for the individual decisions lies with the Princely Court of Justice (Fürstliches Landgericht). The court of appeal is the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht), and in the final instance the Princely Supreme Court (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof); the constitutional court is the State Court of Justice (Staatsgerichtshof).
In addition, for German citizens Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG applies. Liechtenstein nationals are not extradited, pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Constitution (Landesverfassung, LV) and Article 12 RHG; Liechtenstein offers prosecution on behalf of the requesting state under Article 6(2) ECE.
Country-specific issues in Liechtenstein
Fiscal offenses — a special regime owing to the non-ratification of the Second Additional Protocol: Because Liechtenstein has not ratified the Second Additional Protocol to the ECE (which governs extradition for fiscal offenses), Liechtenstein in principle does not extradite to European states — including Germany — for the prosecution of fiscal offenses. This is the central distinctive feature of German–Liechtenstein extradition traffic. Extradition comes into consideration only where, in addition to tax/duty offenses, further extraditable offenses (e.g. aggravated fraud, money laundering, forgery of documents) are the subject of the request.
Schengen accession in 2011: On 19 Dec 2011, Liechtenstein acceded to the Schengen Implementing Convention. Since then, SIS II has applied as the central search infrastructure; SIS II alerts from EU states are processed in Liechtenstein. The EAW, however, does not apply — the classic two-stage ECE procedure remains in place.
Enforcement of sentences exclusively in Austria: The National Prison (Landesgefängnis) in Vaduz (part of the National Police building, constructed in 1991) has since 2017 been used exclusively for pre-trial, safe-custody, police and deportation detention. All custodial sentences of persons convicted in Liechtenstein have, in part since 1983 and exclusively since 2017, been served in Austrian penal institutions — the basis being a bilateral agreement with Austria (BGBl. 353/1983 — Treaty supplementing the European Convention on Extradition; BGBl. 352/1983 — Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance). Pre-release detention is served at the Saxerriet penal institution (Canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland). This enforcement constellation is significant for extradition law, because, on conviction in Liechtenstein, the requested person will in practice serve the sentence in an Austrian prison; detention conditions therefore correspond to Austrian standards (see the Austria country page).
Simplified procedure: With the consent of the requested person, a simplified procedure is possible under Article 32 RHG, corresponding on the German side to Section 41 IRG.
Provisional extradition detention: Under Article 16 ECE, provisional detention before a formal request is possible (a maximum of 40 days, and then, after receipt of the formal request, up to 6 months with judicial extension).
Language: German is the sole official and procedural language; questions of translation do not arise.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions in Liechtenstein itself — namely at the National Prison in Vaduz (Landesgefängnis) — have since 2017 been relevant only for short-term forms of detention (pre-trial, police, safe-custody and deportation detention). The National Prison was built in 1991 together with the National Police building and has no separate wings for the various forms of detention — a differentiated organization of the regime is therefore spatially limited. An extension envisaged in 2004 was rejected by a referendum.
All custodial sentences of persons convicted in Liechtenstein are served in Austrian penal institutions. The transfer takes place after a final conviction by a Liechtenstein court, on the basis of the state treaty BGBl. 353/1983. Pre-release detention takes place at the Swiss Saxerriet penal institution (Canton of St. Gallen).
From an extradition-law perspective, this constellation is favorable: detention conditions correspond to Austrian enforcement standards (see the Austria country page), which are solid by EU comparison. No structural deficiencies or Aranyosi-relevant problems are documented. CPT reports on Liechtenstein (most recently in 2018) attest to conditions acceptable in rule-of-law terms at the National Prison in Vaduz and in police custody.
In German extradition practice, Aranyosi/Căldăraru arguments are scarcely tenable in relations with Liechtenstein; the defense therefore regularly concentrates on other points (the fiscal-offenses bar, dual criminality, double jeopardy (ne bis in idem), procedural errors).
Lines of defense
The defense in Liechtenstein extradition proceedings is built around the following points:
- Fiscal-offenses bar (Article 5 ECE in conjunction with the non-ratification of the Second Additional Protocol): regularly the central line of defense in German extradition requests for tax, duty or customs offenses — Liechtenstein does not extradite for purely fiscal offenses. Evidentiary requirement: characterizing the offense elements as non-fiscal, or separating the sets of facts.
- Dual criminality (Article 2 ECE): a minimum sentence threshold of 1 year on both sides; for the enforcement of a sentence, at least 4 months of sentence remaining (Section 3(2) IRG). A precise comparison with the Liechtenstein Criminal Code (which largely follows the Austrian Criminal Code — application of the Austrian Criminal Code in conjunction with Liechtenstein special provisions).
- Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG (extradition of Germans): review of the connection to the place of the offense and the assurance of return.
- Section 73 sentence 2 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR — detention conditions: owing to the enforcement constellation, to be reviewed in practice against the Austrian standard; as a rule unproblematic.
- Political offenses (Article 3 ECE): extradition for political offenses is inadmissible; in economic and tax proceedings with a political dimension (e.g. sanctions circumvention), careful delimitation.
- Own nationals (Article 6 ECE in conjunction with Article 12 LV): Liechtenstein nationals are not extradited; prosecution on behalf of the requesting state is possible.
- Rule of specialty (Article 14 ECE): limitation to the offenses granted; for supplementary requests, a consent requirement applies.
- Double jeopardy / ne bis in idem (Article 9 ECE): review of the preclusive effect of parallel proceedings, in particular in cross-border economic and tax proceedings with a German or Austrian dimension.
- Simplified procedure (Article 32 RHG / Section 41 IRG): with the consent of the requested person, an expedited procedure is possible.
- Statute of limitations (Article 10 ECE): limitation of prosecution and enforcement under both legal systems — a central point of review where the underlying facts date back many years.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): in constellations of fundamental-rights relevance; in Liechtenstein proceedings rarely central owing to the country's rule-of-law stability, but conceivable in fiscal-offenses constellations and Section 73 IRG questions.
Legal representation in Liechtenstein extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol notice, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.