Liechtenstein institutes proceedings against Germany concerning "decisions of Germany to treat certain property of Liechtenstein nationals as German assets seized for purposes of reparation as a cons

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: lntercourt, The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address : http: Il www.icj.cij.org

Communiqué
unofficial

forim.mediare release

No.2001/14
1June 2001

'11
i

Liechtenstein institutes proceedings against Germany
concerning "decisions of German y to treat certain property of Liechtenstein nationals as
German assets seized for purnoses of reparation as a conseg uence of World War II
witbout ensuring any compensation"

THE HAGUE, 1 June 2001. Today, Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Gerrnany
conceming "decisions of Gennany ... to treat certain property of Liechtenstein nationals as
German assets ... seized for the pwposes of reparation or restitution as a consequence of World
War II ..without ensuring any compensation."

In the Application, Liechtenstein alleges the following facts. ln 1945, Czechoslovakia­
during World War II an allied country and a belligerent against Germany- through a series of
decrees (the Benes decrees) seized German and Hungarian property located on its territory.
Czechoslovakia applied those decrees not only to German and Hungarian nationals, but also to
other persans allegedly of German or Hungarian origin or ethnicity. For this purpose it treated the

nationals of Liechtenstein as German nationals. The property of these Liechtenstein nationals
seized under these decrees (the "Liechtenstein property") bas never been returned to its owners nor
has compensation been offered or paid. The application of the Benes decrees to the Liechtenstein
property remained an unresolved issue between Liechtenstein and Czechoslovakia unti1 the
dissolutionof the latter,and it continuetobe an unresolved issue as between Liechtenstein and the
Czech Republic, on whoseterritory the vast majority of Liechtenstein property is located.

Liechtenstein further refers to theonvention on the Settlement of Matters arising out of the
War and the Occupation, signed at Bonn on 26 May 1952 ("the Settlement Convention"). The
Application states thatby Article 3, paragraph 1, of this Convention, Germany agreed, inter alia,
that it would "in the future raise no objections against the measures which have been, or will be,
carried out with regard to German extemal assets or other property, seized for the purpose of

reparation or restiMion, or as a result of the state of war". The Application alleges that the
Settlement Convention was only concemed with German property so-called, i.e., property of the
German State or of its nationals, and that under international law, having regard to Liechtenstein's
neutrality and the absenceofwhatsoever links between Liechtenstein and the conduct ofthe-war by
Gerrnany,any Liechtenstein property that may have been affected by measures of an AIIiedpower
could not be considered as "seized for the purpose of reparation or restitution, or as a result of the

state of war". Liechtenstein maintains that subsequent to the conclusion of the Settlement
Convention, it was accordingly understood between Germany and itself that the Liechtenstein
property did not fall within the regime of the Convention, and that, as a corollary, Germany
maintained the position that property falling outside the scope of the Convention was unlawfully
seized, and that the German courts were not barred from considering clairns affecting such
property. -2-

Liechtenstein alleges thain 1998 the position of the Federal Republic of Germany changed

however, as a result of a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 28 January 1998. The
decision concemed a painting which was among the Liechtenstein property seized in 1945, and
which was in possession of the Historie Monument Offices in:Brno, Czech Republic, a State entity
of the Czech Republic. Itwas brought to Germany for the PurPOSesof an exhibition, and thus came
into possession of the Municipality of Cologne. At the request of the Reigning Prince,

Prince Hans Adam II, acting in his private capacity, the painting was attached pending
determination of the claim by the German courts. Eventually, however, the claim failed. The
Federal Constitutional Court held that the Gennan courts 'were required by Article 3 of the
Settlement Convention to treat the painting as German prop~ inrthe sense of the Convention.

Accordingly the painting was released and returned to the Czech Republic. The Application of
Liechtenstein claims that the decision of the Federal Constit\Jtional Court is unappealable, and is
attributable to Germany as a matterf international law and is:binding upon Gennany.

Liechtenstein states that it protested to Gennany that the latter was treating as German assets

which belonged to nationals of Liechtenstein, to their detrime,ntand the detriment of Liechtenstein
itself.lt states further that Gennany rejected this protest and that in subsequent consultations it
became clear that Germany now adheres to the position that Liechtenstein assets as a whole were
"seized for the purpose of reparation or restitution, or as a r:esultof the state of war" within the
meaning of the Convention, even though the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court only

concemed a single item. According to the Application of Liechtenstein, in taking this position
Gennany remains faithful to the decisionof its highest court in the matter; but at the same time it
ignores and undennines the rightsof Liechtenstein and its nationals in respect of the Liechtenstein
property. Liechtenstein claims that:

'
"(a) by its conduct with respect to the Liechtenstein property, Jinand since 1998, Germany failed to
respect the rightsf Liechtenstein with respect to that property;

(b) by its failure to make compensation for lasses sufferedy Liechtenstein and/or its nationals,
Germany is in breach ofthe rules of international law"i

Liechtenstein accordingly requests the Court ''to adjùdge and declare that Gennany bas
incurred international legal responsibility and is bound :00make appropriate reparation to
Liechtenstein for the damage and prejudice suffered". Liechtenstein further requests "that the
nature and amount of such reparation should, in the absence of agreement between the parties, be

assessed and determined by the Court, ifnecessary, insep~t ehase ofthe proceedings".

As a basis for the Court's jurisdiction, Liechtenstein, invokes Article 1 of the European
Convention for the Peaceful Settlementof Disputes, signed at ;strasbourg on 29 April 1957. •
1

1
The full text ofLiechtenstein's Application will shorJ>yevailable on the Court's website at

the following address: http://www.icj-cij.org

Information Department:
Mr. Arthur Th. Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court (+31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, lnfonnation Officer (+3103022337)
Email address: infonnation @icj-cij.org