Liechtenstein Court Voids Power-Line Land Rights Decision, Orders Parliament to Reconsider

Liechtenstein’s constitutional court has set aside a parliamentary decision granting compulsory rights for an electricity transmission line across private land in Balzers, sending the matter back to the Landtag for a fresh decision. The ruling addresses the reasoning and scope of the interference with property rights; it does not decide that the power line itself must be removed.

According to the government’s statement of 29 October 2026, the Staatsgerichtshof ruled on 31 August in case StGH 2026/014 that the Landtag’s 3 December 2025 decision concerning the 220-kilovolt line lacked an adequate explanation. In particular, the duration of the rights imposed on landowners had not been defined clearly enough, and the public and private interests had not been weighed in a transparent way.

The court also recognized two points favorable to the transmission operator, Swissgrid AG: there is a statutory basis for compulsory rights in principle, and the Swiss company could make an application despite being a foreign private-law entity. The judgment therefore should not be described as a general ban on compulsory easements or as a finding of wrongdoing by Swissgrid.

Independent local reporting by Landesspiegel describes how the parliamentary discussion included support for a 15-year limitation, yet the proposal ultimately put to a vote lacked that term. It also notes the procedural challenge under Liechtenstein’s expropriation framework, which dates to 1887. These details matter because a property-rights restriction requires a reasoned decision about the specific rights imposed, not simply a vote acknowledging the importance of electricity infrastructure.

The government says it will submit its own report and proposal to parliament specifying the scope, duration and expected compensation for the rights, and that affected landowners will have an opportunity to comment. It argues the line serves regional electricity security. Its statement says an existing administrative order permits the line to continue operating while the renewed decision is pending.

The immediate accountability question is whether the new parliamentary process will document the competing interests and set a definite, reviewable scope for the restrictions. Neither the government’s account nor the local reporting establishes that the court ordered the line shut down or resolved the underlying question of public interest in its current route. The case illustrates judicial oversight of a legislature’s exercise of compulsory property powers.