The Hague, 1 June 2001

Ladies and gentlemen,

I’m glad to see that so many of you were able to accept our invitation to this confer-ence at such short notice. I would also like to thank the “Nieuwspoort” for allowing us to use their facilities. Today is a very significant day for the Principality of Liechtenstein. It emphatically demonstrates our determination to protect our country’s rights of sovereignty.

I wish to inform you that, via our Special Commissioner and Agent for the case, attorney-at-law Dr. Alexander Goepfert who is seated to my right, Liechtenstein has this morning filed an application to the International Court of Justice here in The Hague against the Federal Republic of Germany. The grounds for our action are persistent violation of international law since 1998. Yesterday, we summoned the German ambassador to Liechtenstein, Dr. Reinhard Hilger who resides in Berne, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Vaduz to officially inform him of the step we have taken today.

Our action centres around the issue of how Germany has treated certain Liechtensteinian property since 1998. This is property within the territory of the former Czechoslovakia that was expropriated without compensation after World War II by the Czechoslovak rulers at the time, under the “Beneš Decrees”. The assets involved include land and forestry, buildings and their contents, works of art and businesses belonging to numerous Liechtenstein families. In accordance with a decision taken by Germany’s highest court, the Federal Constitutional Court, on 28 January 1998, Germany is treating this property as German-owned assets outside Germany, which qualifies it for use to pay off German war reparations. This is a remarkable volte-face relative to Germany’s previous stance on the issue. We are bringing our action against Germany precisely because of this major shift in Germany’s position in 1998 and the attitude it has adopted towards us ever since.

Germany has accepted for the first time that Czechoslovakia was within its rights when it confiscated Liechtensteinian property, as "German-owned assets outside Germany", to help meet Germany’s war-reparation debts. On the basis of the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision, the German state denies any and all liability under international law and refuses to compensate Liechtenstein and its citizens for the damages they have incurred.
In a nutshell, Germany has been using other people’s money – that of our citizens – to help pay off its debts (specifically, its war debts).

We are applying all the diplomatic and judicial means available to defend ourselves against this.

In our opinion, Germany is:
1. acting in disregard of our country’s rights of sovereignty and the property rights of our citizens, and
2.violating imperative rules of international law by refusing to render compensation.

We have therefore submitted our application to the International Court of Justice to declare the Federal Republic of Germany liable under international law. In addition, we shall plead that Germany be ordered to pay compensation to Liechtenstein and those of its citizens affected for the loss of their property.

Germany’s position is in blatant disregard of Liechtenstein’s status as a small sov-ereign state. It also negates historical facts recognized by the international community of nations, namely that:

- Liechtenstein has existed as a free, sovereign state since 1806
- Liechtenstein’s statehood is not disputed
- Liechtenstein is one of the few states which have never recognized the 1938 Munich Agreement, and thus does not bear any contributory responsibility for the march into Czechoslovakia and its annexation
- Liechtenstein was recognized by all warring parties in both World Wars as a sov-ereign, neutral state
- Liechtenstein is party to numerous international agreements, and is a member of major international and European organizations and institutions. It has been a member of the United Nations since 1990: one more reason to treat it as an independent, autonomous member of the international community of nations.

Let me say again quite clearly: Liechtenstein is a neutral, sovereign state. Our Liechtenstein citizens are not Germans and never have been.

We have reached the point where we have exhausted all the diplomatic means at our disposal. Neither the official protest lodged by the Principality of Liechtenstein nor some two years of consultations via civil servants and experts have produced any satisfactory result. Germany refuses to enter into official negotiations with Liechtenstein, and it has officially stated that a dispute exists with the Principality of Liechtenstein.
For these reasons, the government of the Principality of Liechtenstein felt compelled, and passed a resolution to this effect on 23 January 2001, to bring action before the International Court of Justice. The Federal Republic of Germany will thus be answerable as respondent before the International Court of Justice.

We are now placing our trust in the international judicial system. During diplomatic consultations Germany, too, recognized that calling upon the International Court of Justice – the principal judicial body of the United Nations – is an acceptable means of settling disputes.

I feel it is important to emphasize that taking recourse to international courts to clarify legal issues and settle differences of opinion is not a confrontational approach, but shows that the parties place their trust in the law and its institutions. Liechtenstein does not wish its action to impair its fundamentally good relations with Germany.

The Agent whom the Liechtenstein government has appointed to conduct this case is attorney-at-law Dr. Alexander Goepfert. He is based in Düsseldorf, as a partner in one of the largest and most respected international law firms, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Dr. Goepfert has already represented Liechtensteinian interests in the past, both before German courts and at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. We have also assigned him the additional role of Special Commissioner for the case before the International Court of Justice. In this capacity, Dr. Goepfert has been authorized by the government to respond to press enquiries regarding the case.

In addition, Liechtenstein has engaged the services of some of the wolrd's most renowned experts on public international law to act as Counsel before the International Court of Justice. They are:

- Professor Dr. Dieter Blumenwitz, holder of the chair in public international law, general government studies, German and Bavarian government law and political science at the University of Würzburg;
- Professor Dr. James Crawford, professor of public international law at the University of Cambridge and director of the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, and
- Professor Dr. Gerhard Hafner, who teaches public international law and international commercial law at the Institute of International Law and International Relations in the Jurisprudence Faculty of the University of Vienna.

The Counsel will advise the Agent and support him both in drawing up written plead-ings and preparing the case for oral presentation to the Court.

Furthermore, we have chosen to exercise our right to appoint a “judge ad hoc” to the Court. This is an option open to any country that is party to a case when none of the judges on the panel is a national of that country. We have nominated Professor Dr. Ian Brownlie to perform this task; he taught at Oxford for many years and has authored a number of recognized standard texts on public international law. Professor Dr. Brownlie has himself acted as counsel for parties to a number of cases before the International Court of Justice.