CELEX: E1998P0003
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 12 May 1998 in the case of Tradeparts AG (Case E-3/98)

Important legal notice

|

E1998P0003

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 12 May 1998 in the case of Tradeparts AG (Case E-3/98)  

Official Journal C 331 , 29/10/1998 P. 0024 - 0024

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 12 May 1998 in the case of Tradeparts AG (Case E-3/98) (98/C 331/09)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 12 May 1998 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 1998, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Tradeparts AG, on the following questions.1. Is the business law provision in Liechtenstein's national law, to the effect that a managing director of a Liechtenstein legal person must have his residence in the country (the Principality of Liechtenstein), in conformity with the EEA Agreement and in particular in conformity with Article 31 et seq. dated 2 May 1992?2. If the answer to the first question is that the Liechtenstein business law provision of a requirement of residence for a managing director of a Liechtenstein company is not in conformity with the EEA Agreement, whether in view of the specific case of Liechtenstein, Protocol 15, safeguard measures in accordance with Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, and the declaration of the EEA Council on the freedom of choice of residence, could the requirement of residence nevertheless be justified with the consequence that the provisions of the Business Law (Article 17, Article 6(1)(a) are in conformity with the EEA Agreement?3. Do the grounds of public policy, public security or public health justify the business law provisions concerning the requirement of residence, either instead of or in addition to the special situation in Liechtenstein or on account of the exceptional provision of Article 33 of the EEA