Security bot

The security bot (formerly also called “ arrest ”) is a form of temporary injunction to secure monetary claims in the Principality of Liechtenstein .

The security measure is not permitted if the party can achieve the same purpose through an act of execution (Art. 274 Paragraph 1 EO ).

Security reasons

With the security bot, the endangerment and the claim must be made credible. The risk must be caused subjectively by the behavior of the respondent (security reasons - Art 274 EO, also known as "grounds for arrest").

This is the case when the security opponent

Assets damaged, destroyed, concealed or removed or this is a credible threat
could thwart or make more difficult the collection of the monetary claim through the sale or other disposal of objects of his property, in particular through agreements made with third parties or through omissions.

Reasons for security are also given if the respondent (Art. 274 Para. 3 EO):

does not have a permanent address;
with the intention of evading the fulfillment of his obligations, makes arrangements to flee or flees;
does not live in Liechtenstein or if the enforcement title would otherwise have to be enforced abroad.

A security bid may not be issued if the security seeker is already sufficiently covered by a lien or right of retention or otherwise appears to be adequately covered at the discretion of the court, taking into account the general financial situation of the domestic debtor (Art. 274, Paragraph 4 EO).

Security means

Securing means can be (Art 275 EO):

the attachment, custody and administration of the debtor's movable tangible property and the judicial deposit of money;
the judicial ban on the sale or pledging of movable tangible property with the effect that an illegal sale or pledge is invalid, unless the bona fide purchaser is protected under the provisions of property law;
the judicial ban on third parties if the debtor has to make a monetary claim or a claim to performance or surrender of other things from a third party, including the security buyer himself.
In the case of real estate and legal rights, a prohibition of sale, encumbrance or pledging (restriction on disposal) can be issued to secure a monetary claim or the registration of a lien or receivership can be ordered (Art. 275 para. 3 EO).

Security deposit

In the event of insufficient or missing certification of the claim or the legal relationship (Art. 283 Paragraph 1 EO), the court can impose security on the applicant for security. However, the security deposit does not replace the lack of a certificate of the risk or the claim.

Effect of the security bot

The creditor obtains the solid fuse in tangible goods ( movables ) or on the demand or as a result of safety have mortgages prescription or the sequestration a lien . In the event of restrictions on disposal , he acquires a right of priority over subsequent buyers of real rights .

Competent authority

Before initiating a legal dispute during the same or during the foreclosure proceedings, the Princely Regional Court can, at its own discretion, carry out the security officer or order procedure to secure the right (claim) of a party at the request of the same or, where permissible, ex officio.

Exceptions to the issuance of the security notice

Securing messengers may not be issued if they

Property, including property rights, which the state has confiscated for public law purposes (e.g. in criminal or extradition proceedings),
are excluded for reasons of constitutional or international law (e.g. against diplomatic representatives from foreign states and against foreign states (Art. 16 Paragraphs 1 and 2 RSO ^old )),
against foreign state railway companies and their vehicles, as long as it is not a question of rental cars or cars that belong to private parties (Art. 16 para. 3 RSO ^old ).

literature

Gerard Batliner: Security bot and official order "The preliminary injunction" according to Liechtenstein law. Dissertation, Schaan 1957 (outdated).

Individual evidence

↑ Art 17 RSO ^old These provisions of the legal security order (dated February 9, 1923, LGBl 8/1923) were repealed in 1972 by LGBl 32/1/1972 and largely incorporated into the enforcement order (EO).
↑ The third party ban is implemented by forbidding the debtor to dispose of the claim and, in particular, forbidding it to be confiscated, and by issuing the order to the third party not to pay what is owed to the security opponent in the event of his own liability and not to pay for the property due to him, unless a further court order is issued to do anything else with regard to them that could thwart or considerably complicate the execution of the execution of the claim for money or the items owed or to be surrendered. Through this prohibition, the security seeker acquires a right of lien on the claims or claims of the security opponent drawn into security (Art. 275 Para. 2 EO).

[1] Art 17 RSO ^old These provisions of the legal security order (dated February 9, 1923, LGBl 8/1923) were repealed in 1972 by LGBl 32/1/1972 and largely incorporated into the enforcement order (EO).

[2] The third party ban is implemented by forbidding the debtor to dispose of the claim and, in particular, forbidding it to be confiscated, and by issuing the order to the third party not to pay what is owed to the security opponent in the event of his own liability and not to pay for the property due to him, unless a further court order is issued to do anything else with regard to them that could thwart or considerably complicate the execution of the execution of the claim for money or the items owed or to be surrendered. Through this prohibition, the security seeker acquires a right of lien on the claims or claims of the security opponent drawn into security (Art. 275 Para. 2 EO).