Venice Commission - Observatory on emergency situations

Disclaimer: this information was gathered by the Secretariat of the Venice Commission on the basis of contributions by the members of the Venice Commission, and complemented with information available from various open sources (academic articles, legal blogs, official information web-sites etc.).

Every effort was made to provide accurate and up-to-date information. For further details please visit our page on COVID-19 and emergency measures taken by the member States: https://www.venice.coe.int/WebForms/pages/?p=02_EmergencyPowersObservatory&lang=EN

Liechtenstein

1. Are there specific provisions in the constitution of your country applicable to emergency situations (war and/or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation)?

According to Art 10 of the Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein (LV - see here), the Prince "in urgent cases" shall take "the necessary measures for the security and welfare of the State".

The Prince is also entitled to pass emergency regulations on the ground of Art 10 para 2 LV. Those regulations may not suspend the Constitution as a whole or individual provisions thereof, but may only limit the applicability of individual provisions of the Constitution. Emergency regulations may not curtail the right of each person to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, the prohibition of slavery and forced labour, or the principle of nulla poena sine lege. Moreover, the provisions of this Article, of Articles 3 (House Law of the Princely House), 13ter (motion of no-confidence against the Prince, and 113 (abolishment of the Monarchy), and the Law on the Princely House may not be limited by emergency regulations. Emergency regulations shall expire at the latest six months after they have been issued.

2. Do organic/constitutional or ordinary laws regulating the state of emergency exist in your country?

The Bevölkerungsschutzgesetz (Civil Protection Act) (LGBl 2007/Nr. 139) which is an ordinary law regulates the preparation, execution, and financing of measures to protect civil society and their livelihoods in the event of normal, special, and extraordinary situations. Another aim of the Civil Protection Act lies within the prevention, limitation, and handling of damage events.

3. Do organic or ordinary laws on health risks or other public emergency exist in your country?

Due to the provisions of the Customs Treaty between Switzerland and the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Swiss Epidemiegesetz (Epidemic Act) (see in French here) is applied in Liechtenstein as well; the relevant Swiss provisions were promulgated by LGBl 2020/Nr. 128.

The government of the Principality of Liechtenstein used the abovementioned provisions to issue the Regulation of 13 March 2020 on the Measures to Fight the Coronavirus (COVID-19). The regulation was published by the LGBl 2020/Nr. 94.

4. Was a state of emergency declared in your country due to the Covid-19 pandemic? By what authority and for how long?

The state of emergency was not declared in Lichtenstein, since this mechanism is not provided by the Constitution (see Q1).

5. Was the declaration subject and submitted to parliamentary approval (if it was taken by the executive)?

The state of emergency was not declared in Lichtenstein, since this mechanism is not provided by the Constitution (see Q1), consequently, there was no need of parliamentary approval.

6. Was the declaration subject and submitted to judicial review? Was it found justiciable?

The state of emergency was not declared in Lichtenstein, since this mechanism is not provided by the Constitution (see Q1), consequently, it could not be submitted to a judicial review.

7. Are derogations to human rights possible in emergency situations under national law? What are the circumstances and criteria required in order to trigger an exception? Was a derogation under Article 15 ECHR or under any other international instrument made? Does national law prohibit derogation from certain rights even in emergency situations? Is there an explicit requirement that derogations should be proportionate, that is limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, in duration, circumstance and scope?

No derogation to Article 15 of ECHR or any other international instrument was made. According to Bussjaeger (in Liechtenstein-Institut (ed.), Commentary of the Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein, www.verfassung.li), emergency regulations may only repeal or restrict the binding force of domestic legal provisions. But emergency regulations cannot suspend the effects of existing obligations under international law. This means that acts of sovereignty legitimized by an emergency regulation might very well violate obligations under international law. This might be of particular relevance concerning the limits of discretionary emergency powers as imposed by the ECHR. Yet apart from the absolute fundamental rights granted by the ECHR, other obligations under international law may be altered by the emergency regulations.

8. Which human rights have been limited/derogated from in your country, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic?

No fundamental rights were abolished entirely, but the measures taken to combat and limit the spread of COVID-19 led to several significant restrictions of different fundamental rights, in public interest. The measures affected in particular the following fundamental rights: the freedom of establishment (Article 28 of the LV), the freedom of movement (Article 2, 4th Additional Protocol to the ECHR), the freedom of trade and commerce (Article 36 of the LV), the freedom of religion (Article 37 of the LV, Article 9 of the ECHR), the protection of private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR), or the freedom of association and assembly (Article 41 of the LV).

9. If a declaration of state of emergency was not made, did the Executive enjoy additional powers under the ordinary legislation on health risks or another public emergency? Did it decide to impose exceptional restrictions on human rights based on these laws?

Certain regulations introduced during the epidemy were based on the Swiss Epidemic Act, incorporated in the legal order of Lichtenstein (see Q3). Otherwise, the government was not vested with additional powers.

10. Are the possibilities for the Executive to derogate from the normal division of powers in emergency circumstances limited in duration, circumstance and scope?

The Epidemic Act creates rather far-reaching powers to act. The current regulation in force (see Q3) is limited to a maximum of six months.

11. Were the sessions of parliament suspended during the Covid-19 pandemic? If so, for how long? Were specific rules on the functioning of parliament during the emergency adopted? By parliament or by the executive?

The sessions of the Landtag were not suspended. On 20 March 2020 a special session of the Landtag took place, while the meeting scheduled for 1 April 2020 was postponed and on 8 April 2020 an additional special session was held.

12. Were the judicial sessions of the Constitutional Court or court with equivalent jurisdiction and/or other courts be suspended during the Covid-19 pandemic? If so, for how long? Were specific rules on the functioning of these courts during the emergency adopted? By parliament or by the executive?

Activities of the courts and especially of the State Court were not formally suspended. The Act of 8 April 2020 on Accompanying Administrative and Judicial Measures in Connection with the Coronavirus (COVID-19) (COVID-19 VJBG) (LGBl 2020/Nr. 136) includes, for example, special provisions for collegial courts to take decisions by way of circulation. This Act will be in force until 15 June 2020.
According to Art 5 para of this Act, hearings and oral proceedings before a court or administrative authority may be held only if (a) if the proceedings appear necessary to be continued after careful consideration of all circumstances; and (b) the general interest in preventing and combating the spread of the Coronavirus does not outweigh the individual interests.

If it is absolutely necessary to hold a hearing of one of the parties or to hold an oral proceeding, it may be held without the personal presence of all parties using appropriate technical means of communication.

This provision restricted the operation of the courts considerably. However, the Corona-related provisions did not bring considerable changes to the courts of higher instances given that respective decisions could also be taken using telephone and video conferences.

13. Was legislation on the state of emergency or on the emergency amended or adopted to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic?

At the legislative level, Act of 8 April 2020 on Accompanying Administrative and Judicial Measures in Connection with the Coronavirus (COVID-19) (COVID-19 VJBG) (LGBl 2020/Nr. 136). This Act will be in force until 15 June 2020.

In addition, the executive adopted various regulations to combat the spread of the virus.

14. Was this additional legislation subject to judicial review?

The State Court as a constitutional court of the country has not yet had to deal with legal questions concerning measures taken during the Corona crisis.

15. Was the state of emergency prolonged? For how long? Was the prolongation subject and submitted to parliamentary control? Was it subject and submitted to judicial review?

As no state of emergency was declared, none was extended. The legsilation adopted during the ciris (Act of 8 April 2020 on Accompanying Administrative and Judicial Measures in Connection with the Coronavirus (COVID-19) (COVID-19 VJBG) (LGBl 2020/Nr. 136) has a sunset clause - it will be in force until 15 June 2020.

16. What are the legal remedies available against general measures and/or individual taken under the state of emergency? What are the legal remedies for measures taken in application of ordinary legislation on health crisis? Has any change to the available legal remedies been decided on account or brought about by the state of emergency? Were any emergency measures invalidated and for what reasons (competence, procedure, lack of proportionality etc.)

The system of remedies had not changed during the crisis. Affected persons may challenge the relevant regulations before the State Court (Art 104 LV and Art 15 State Court Act). Also, the ordinary courts could obtain the examination of laws and ordinances by the State Court (Art 18 and 20 State Court Act). Regulations could also be challenged by a group of people (Art 20 para 1 State Court Act requires 100 signatures).

17. If parliamentary and/or, where applicable, presidential elections were scheduled to take place during the Covid-19 emergency: were they held? Were special arrangements made, and if so, which arrangements? Was it necessary to amend the electoral legislation? What was the turnout? How was it compared to the previous elections? If they were postponed, what was the constitutional or legal basis for doing so? Who took the decision? For how long were they postponed? Was this decision subject and submitted to parliamentary control or judicial review?

No elections were held during the period in question, nor were any planned. However, two referenda “HalbeHalbe” (balanced quota of representatives of both genders in political bodies” and “Doppelstaatsbürgerschaft” (Double Citizenship) which had been scheduled for 7 June 2020 were postponed for 30 August 2020.

18. Same questions as under 17), mutatis mutandis, as regards local elections and referendums.

Not applicable, no local elections were held or planned.