On June 10, 2015 there was a good deal of discussion about a FATCA injunction issued by a Liechtenstein judge. This was reported and discussed at the Isaac Brock Society (and other places). The problem has been to understand exactly (or even approximately) what the decision was and what the decision means.
As a result, I asked a professional translator to “take a crack at this”. The basis for the translation was the following newspaper article.
What follows is the PDF of the translation and the actual text of the translation.
T R A N S L A T I O N
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Liechtenstein Constitutional Court grants FATCA claimants more time
VADUZ – Two Liechtenstein financial market service providers, who brought a lawsuit against various
provisions of the FATCA Law, can catch their breath. For the time being, they are given a few months
more time. However, this is not a fundamental decision.
As a temporary injunction until a ruling has been handed down on their constitutional complaint, however
until latest September 18, 2015, the Constitutional Court has forbidden information reported by the two
claimants to the Liechtenstein Tax Authority by June 30, 2015 to be forwarded by the Tax Authority to US
authorities and other agencies, particularly the IRS. This was reported on Wednesday by the law office of
Wolff, Gstöhl & Bruckschweiger in Vaduz. As attorney Karl Mumelter explained to “Volksblatt,” the
grounds for the decision by the Constitutional Court were essentially that the claimants would incur a disproportionate
and irreparable disadvantage if the information reported to the Liechtenstein Tax Authority
were to be forwarded to US authorities before the Constitutional Court ruled on the claimants’ constitutional
Partial victory for the claimants
In February of this year the two Liechtenstein financial market service providers filed a constitutional
complaint with the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court against the law of December 4, 2014 concerning
implementation of the FATCA Agreement. Their complaint seeks to have – in their opinion – unconstitutional
provisions of the FATCA Law repealed. In their complaint the claimants contend that the FATCA
Law contains unconstitutional references to US Tax Law, is not litigable because of its complexity, and
subjects the financial market service providers to disproportionate and unforeseeable costs. At the end of
May 2015 the two claimants filed with the Constitutional Court a supplementary motion for Grant of
Temporary Injunction in this matter. The decision handed down by the Constitutional Court on June 9,
2015 grants this motion. The Constitutional Court granted the temporary injunction until September 18,
2015. As Karl Mumelter further stated, the Constitutional Court feels that the temporary nature of the relief
sought ensures, on the one hand, that no disproportionate disadvantages are incurred by the claimants
and that the constitutional complaint is not ultimately robbed of its effect and, on the other hand, that the
public interest in swift and efficient implementation of the FATCA Agreement is upheld. “It appears the
Constitutional Court will conclude the matter of the constitutional complaint by September 2015,” said
Finanzmarktteilnehmer (financial market service providers): I presume this means anyone subject to the
Financial Market Supervisory Authority Individualantrag: According to AUSTRIAN Law (sorry, couldn’t find a reference for Liechtenstein Law,
but it should be about the same), an “Individualantrag” is a subsidiary legal remedy. A party may avail itself of an “Individualtrag” only if there is no other way to bring its matter before the Constitutional Court. Translated as “constitutional complaint.”
Individualantragverfahren: Individualantrag proceeding Volksblatt: Liechtenstein daily newspaper
This is excellent news. It should be used to motivate people all around the world to:
1. Oppose FATCA; and
2. Oppose local government complicity in FATCA IGAs.