Basic information			Substance of the ruling			Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date	Name of the case (or case number)	The body delivering the decision	Keywords, topic	Executive part	Brief summary	Full text	Page at the website of the issuing court	Page in other databases	Unofficial materials, press communications
May 10. 2022.	StGH 2022/003	Constitutional Court of Liechtenstein	Vaccination; freedom of movement; discrimination	The Constitutional Court of Liechtenstein held that the 2g rule requiring vaccination or recovery certificate for unlimited mobility meant an unreasonable restriction of non-vaccinated persons' fundamental rights, moreover, lacked a proper legal basis.	The Constitutional Court of Liechtenstein held that the 2g rule requiring vaccination or recovery certificate for unlimited mobility meant an unreasonable restriction of non-vaccinated persons' fundamental rights, moreover, lacked a proper legal basis. The 2g rule was adopted by a decree, while no state of emergency was declared in Liechtenstein, therefore, such provisions with paramount importance should have been incorporated to a law. Moreover, such a differentiation between vaccinated and non-vaccinated persons amounted to a discriminatory treatment.	https://gerichtsentscheidungen.li/default.aspx?z=JMkLiv5Rua3NHmKOv47QcAD-dAQsduyxNvBuUp56ZA6OAr7Gk3lvtoPHmn0lkVXzzMr-p4qKZPSBre3wlYd3Olku0			http://www.codices.coe.int/NXT/gateway.dll/CODICES/precisongoing/eng/eur/ita/ita-2023-2-003?f=xhitlist$xhitlist_x=Advanced$xhitlist_vpc=first$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title;item-bookmark$xhitlist_d={Codices}$xhitlist_q=[field%20E_Alphabetical%20Index:%22Vaccination%22]
December 7. 2021.	StGH 2021/082	Constitutional Court of Liechtenstein	Vaccination; freedom of movement; discrimination	The Constitutional Court of Liechtenstein held that the 3G rule meant only a slight encroachment on fundamental rights, therefore, its constitutionality was confirmed.	The Constitutional Court assessed the constitutionality of the 3G rule, which restricted by a governmental order the mobility of individuals unless one would be vaccinated, tested or recovered. The Constitutional Court held that this measure meant only a slight encroachment on fundamental rights and did not constitute a discriminatory treatment, therefore, its legal basis was sufficient, and its constitutionality was upheld.				https://www.zbl-online.ch/en/artikel/2504-0731-2022-0019/staatsgerichtshof-7-dezember-2021-stgh-2021082-normenkontrollantrag
December 7. 2021.	StGH 2021/081.	Constitutional Court of Liechtenstein	Vaccination; freedom of movement; discrimination	The Constitutional Court of Liechtenstein confirmed also in an other ruling, that the 3G rule meant only a slight encroachment on fundamental rights, therefore, its constitutionality was confirmed.	The Constitutional Court assessed also in an other ruling the constitutionality of the 3G rule, which restricted by a governmental order the mobility of individuals unless one would be vaccinated, tested or recovered. The Constitutional Court held that this measure meant only a slight encroachment on fundamental rights and did not constitute a discriminatory treatment, therefore, its legal basis was sufficient, and its constitutionality was upheld.				https://www.gerichtsentscheidungen.li/default.aspx?z=IfN7yxSATiSGPx5MyKkyVbBcbt1Q3X6DAwUavsPoslYTjtesizxx6LDsmIRIfi7-GkCh8Y55sXsp6txMXh6lnQ6bHcVV8uWK7y-O7lQDHIWnrnS6eCsh269DQqkUoIDW96z5K12c-aNgnztelJA1