Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2026 Update (June)

Liechtenstein

(Adopted by the Global Forum in November 2025)

Liechtenstein joined the Global Forum in 2009. Liechtenstein underwent its Second Round of EOIR Peer Review in 2019 (Liechtenstein’s 2019 Report),1 which assessed its legal and regulatory framework in force as at 14 December 2018 and its practical implementation, including in respect of EOI requests received and sent during the review period from 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2017. Liechtenstein received an overall rating of Largely Compliant and the individual Elements were rated as follows:

 

	A.1	A.2	A.3	B.1	B.2	C.1	C.2	C.3	C.4	C.5	Overall
Determinations	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	n.a.	LC
Ratings	C	C	C	C	C	LC	C	LC	LC	LC

Status of implementation of recommendations issued in the peer review report

Liechtenstein received six in-box recommendations in relation to Elements A.1, A.2, C.1, C.3, C.4 and C.5. Liechtenstein also received 11 in-text recommendations pertaining to Elements A.1, A.3, B.2, C.2 and C.5. Liechtenstein had submitted a detailed report indicating that it had fully addressed all in-box recommendations. In 2024, the Peer Review Group of the Global Forum assessed the actions taken by Liechtenstein to address the in-box recommendations issued in its EOIR Peer Review Report and concluded that those recommendations are “considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)”. The Global Forum had agreed that jurisdictions that have been permitted by the Peer Review Group to stop reporting on the actions taken to address the recommendations issued to them under the Methodology for the Second Round of EOIR Reviews will have their individual jurisdiction report published as part of the first annual monitoring report under the enhanced monitoring process, to indicate the progress that they had made to address the recommendations given to them and that they are no longer required to submit self-assessment reports on the recommendations made in their peer review.

This monitoring report presents the actions taken by Liechtenstein to address the in-box recommendations issued in its EOIR Peer Review Report as considered and accepted in 2024. In addition, it also assesses the actions taken by Liechtenstein to address the in-text recommendations and the peer input received for the monitoring period 2023-2024.

The report concludes that in addition to all the in-box recommendations, eight in-text recommendations are also “considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)” while three in-text recommendations are “no longer sufficiently material”.

Element A.1: Availability of ownership and identity information

1. Availability of beneficial ownership information for all relevant entities and arrangements

 

Recommendation (A.1, framework)	Liechtenstein should further strengthen its measures to ensure that beneficial ownership information is available in respect of all relevant entities and arrangements as required under the standard.
Underlying factor	A small number of entities or arrangements carrying out domestic business are exempt from the general obligation to have a licensed director or member of the board covered under AML law and in some cases may not engage an AML obliged service provider in Liechtenstein. Consequently, beneficial ownership in respect of these entities or arrangements may not be available in all cases. (see paragraphs 67 et seq. of Liechtenstein’s 2019 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The small gap identified in the 2019 Report was closed through the new Act on the Register of Beneficial Owners of Legal Entities (beneficial ownership register) which implements the European Union 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive and came into force on 1 April 2021. The new Act states that beneficial ownership information in relation to all legal entities incorporated in Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein trusts and foundations, trusts established abroad but managed in Liechtenstein as well as foreign trusts that are managed in a third state and with a domestic business relationship or that have purchased real estate property in Liechtenstein need to be held within a central electronic register administered by the Office of Justice. This obligation also covers approximately 50 general and limited partnerships which were previously exempt from beneficial ownership requirements. Under the new legislation, the Fiscal Authority (Liechtenstein’s Competent Authority) has access to the beneficial ownership register. In addition, the Financial Intelligence Unit, the Financial Market Authority, the Prosecutors Office, the Princely Court, the National Police, AML-obliged persons and the Liechtenstein Bar Association (as a supervisory authority) all have access to the beneficial ownership register. The beneficial ownership register is supported by discrepancy reporting. AML-obliged persons as well as public authorities with access to the register must report any discrepancies that come to their knowledge. Further, AML-obliged persons are not allowed to rely exclusively on the data contained in the register while identifying beneficial owners. The Office of Justice is responsible for the supervision of compliance with the obligations under the new legislation. It verifies the data entered into the beneficial ownership register and audits the submissions. The Office of Justice has all necessary legal powers to execute any measures necessary. The new law entered into force on 1 April 2021. Existing legal entities were required to submit their beneficial ownership information by 1 October 2021. Since then, 22 758 (99.9%) legal entities and arrangements have registered their beneficial ownership information in the register. Further, the Office of Justice issued more than one thousand notices to re-instruct defaulting legal entities to register in the Beneficial Ownership Register. Over 200 administrative penalties leading to more than EUR 118 000 in fines were imposed. Three defaulting non-compliant entities were put under ex officio liquidation. With the exception of these entities, the Beneficial Ownership register was fully populated. All discrepancy reports were acted upon to ensure accuracy of the data in the register. The Office of Justice has put in place a mechanism for carrying out supervisory checks on legal entities’ compliance with beneficial ownership reporting obligations. These checks have been carried out in 2023 and 2024.
Conclusion	Liechtenstein has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. The previous gap appears to be closed by the new Act on the Register of Beneficial Owners of Legal Entities. Furthermore, the statistics provided by Liechtenstein on the level of compliance of entities with the registration requirements and the supervisory activities conducted by Liechtenstein are likely to be considered as being adequate in a peer review, towards ensuring effective implementation.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate action required.

Element A.2: Availability of accounting information

2. Retention of underlying accounting documentation for private asset structures and special asset dedications

 

Recommendation (A.2, practice)	Liechtenstein should strengthen supervision of entities and arrangements that qualify as special asset dedications or are subject to Private Asset Structure regime so that it is ensured that all accounting records as defined under the standard are available.
Underlying factor	Practical availability of accounting information of entities and arrangements which do not carry out commercial activities and qualify as special asset dedications or entities subject to Private Asset Structure regime relies on AML supervision. Although AML supervision in Liechtenstein is adequate, concerns arise regarding the scope of accounting information checked during AML inspections. (see paragraphs 172 et seq. of Liechtenstein’s 2019 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The Fiscal Authority has sufficient oversight over accounting records of Private Asset Structures. All non-commercial entities and arrangements, including entities and arrangements that are taxed as Private Asset Structures, are obliged to engage with a licensed Trust or Company Service Provider. As of 30 November 2023, there were 177 Trust or Company Service Providers in Liechtenstein, and 6 518 entities taxed as Private Asset Structures registered in the tax register. Since 2015, the Fiscal Authority conducts audits at the level of Trust or Company Service Providers in order to ensure that the legal entities and arrangements that are taxed as Private Asset Structures and claim to conduct no business activities and hence are exempt from comprehensive filing requirements, are indeed not conducting any commercial activities. The Private Asset Structure status is only granted to an entity or arrangement upon application to the Fiscal Authority. Accordingly, the audits of the Trust or Company Service Providers (referred to as Private Asset Structure audits) include checking the correctness of the (simplified) accounting records for these non-commercial entities. The Private Asset Structure audits check whether commercial activities were conducted through reviewing the availability and correctness of the (simplified) accounting records. The review of accounting records is an essential part of the Private Asset Structure audits. Accordingly, the audits of the Fiscal Authority also check the availability of adequate accounting records of these specific entities and arrangements. The audits are conducted on a risk-based approach with on-site audits and sample testing, and this covers all Trust or Company Service Providers. There were some delays due to the COVID19 restrictions between 2020 and 2022, however, the first audit cycle was finalised in October 2023. A new cycle has started in the second half of 2023. The general goal is to have audits every five years, covering the whole market for trust or company service providers. The results of the audits conducted since 2015 show that the legal requirements were fulfilled in the majority of the cases. Only in very rare cases (less than five) appropriate accounting records were missing. In such cases, the Private Asset Structure status was revoked, and the entity was asked to produce appropriate records for the (retroactive) tax assessment, including accounting records. Unlike for Private Asset Structures, the Fiscal Authority does not specifically audit trusts in respect of their accounting records. However, Liechtenstein stated that supervision in relation to these entities and arrangements is to a certain extent done by the Financial Market Authority as the accounting documents belonging to a business relationship are part of the documents that are subject to the AML examinations of the Financial Market Authority, especially when it comes to transaction monitoring. Hence, Liechtenstein has reported that the Financial Market Authority's supervisory activities also include determining whether trusts are keeping adequate accounting records as part of the documentation to be maintained by AML-obliged persons. Furthermore, between April 2019 and November 2023, Liechtenstein received 145 requests that asked for accounting information. Out of these requests, accounting information was provided in 139 cases (of which 24 were on Private Asset Structure entities and 23 were on trusts), 1 request was declined for other reasons, 3 requests were withdrawn, while 2 requests are pending. No concerns were raised by peers in this respect as well.
Conclusion	Liechtenstein has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. Liechtenstein has strengthened the supervision of the relevant entities and arrangements that conduct no business activities, through the audits conducted on Trust or Company Service Providers by the Fiscal Authority. Liechtenstein has been able to answer requests for accounting information in all cases pertaining to Private Asset Structures and non-commercial trusts. Peer input has been satisfactory.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate action required.

Element C.1: EOIR instruments

3. Foreseeably relevant information

 

Recommendation (C.1, practice)	Liechtenstein should monitor the application of the foreseeable relevance standard and, if necessary, take further measures to ensure that all foreseeably relevant information is provided as required under the standard in all cases.
Underlying factor	Liechtenstein has amended its law to broaden the possibility to provide foreseeably relevant information. However, the amendment remains untested in practice and it is unclear to what extent it broadens the possibility to provide all foreseeably relevant information in cases where the person subject of the request does not have any direct relation to the legal entity or arrangement in Liechtenstein. (see paragraphs 272 et seq. of Liechtenstein’s 2019 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Since the 2019 Report, the Liechtenstein Competent Authority has monitored the application of the foreseeable relevance standard. Liechtenstein has exchanged foreseeably relevant information in almost all cases. Only in one case provision of information on grounds of foreseeable relevance was declined in application of a decision from the Administrative Court as the requesting jurisdiction did not explain why the information requested was likely to be foreseeably relevant for the determination, assessment, enforcement or collection of taxes. The Liechtenstein Competent Authority informed the requesting authority accordingly. In respect of redacting of information while transmitting it to the treaty partner, Liechtenstein Competent Authority has adopted a streamlined procedure for considering redactions to ensure compliance with its data protection rules without affecting exchange of foreseeably relevant information. Persons/names are mentioned or redacted in line with the legal provisions (EOI agreements and Tax Administrative Assistance Act) as well as the jurisprudence of the Liechtenstein Administrative Court and Constitutional Court. An internal guidance on redactions has been put in place to ensure that the EOIR officers apply the rules consistently and in line with the legal provisions and jurisprudence. Any information that is foreseeably relevant for the case is never redacted (for instance, information on persons/names mentioned in the request or that are involved in the tax case at hand or persons that have a relation whatsoever to the persons or to the entities under investigation). The internal guidance includes an extensive list of information which must not be redacted. This list includes all names of persons which are not unaffiliated third parties (e.g. family members), names of beneficiaries and second beneficiaries in by-laws or letter of wishes of the entity under investigation, names of other group companies or affiliated companies. In general, only the names and contact details of persons who randomly appear in the documents and would have nothing to do with the matter under investigation or have any connection with the purpose of the request would be redacted on a case-by-case basis (for instance, the names of bank clerks, secretary staff). In addition, if based on the explanations of the requesting jurisdiction, the redacted information is relevant, the Fiscal Authority will issue a new decree where the information is no longer redacted. All decrees are issued on a case-by-case basis after the Fiscal Authority conducts internal proceedings that take an average of six to eight weeks. The time may be longer if the decree is challenged in court. However, Liechtenstein informed that in practice, none of those cases has ever been challenged in court. After the decree has legal effect, the unredacted information is transmitted to the requesting partner. If it is unclear for the EOIR officer whether a person should be redacted, the officer discusses the issue with his/her superiors. If it still cannot be clearly established whether a person/name should be redacted, the Liechtenstein Competent Authority does not redact the person/name. Only upon application and with sufficient and plausible reason a person/name would be redacted. Additionally, Liechtenstein informs the requesting jurisdiction in its answering cover letter to the submission that redactions were made, together with the reasons for the redactions.
Conclusion	Liechtenstein has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. Foreseeably relevant information has been exchanged in all but one case. Liechtenstein has taken steps to ensure that its policy around redaction of documents does not affect exchange of foreseeably relevant information. Redactions have been limited to information on persons not linked to the request. Further, there is a procedure in place to share unredacted information if so sought by the treaty partner. Where redactions are made, Liechtenstein informs the treaty partner of the reasons for doing so. Peers have reported a general level of satisfaction on information received from Liechtenstein.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate action required.

Element C.3: Confidentiality

4. Information received: disclosure, use and safeguards

 

Recommendation (C.3, practice)	Liechtenstein should ensure that information necessary to obtain the requested information is disclosed only to persons concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of the taxes covered by the exchange of information agreement.
Underlying factor	Persons, who can inspect the EOI file and are notified of an EOI request, include clients of the information holder or third parties whose information is relevant to the request. Liechtenstein indicates that in practice, these persons are typically the information holder and persons named in the exchanged information (which is normally the taxpayer subject of the request). Nevertheless, the broad scope of these persons goes beyond what is necessary to obtain the requested information. (see paragraphs 320 et seq. of Liechtenstein’s 2019 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Liechtenstein noted that with regard to the inspection of the EOI file, due to data protection requirements, persons affected by a request have the right to inspect their specific EOI file. Only the information holder or a person concerned with a request may inspect an EOI file. A person concerned must be personally and directly affected by the request to be entitled to examine the EOI file. In 2021, Liechtenstein issued a guidance note on how this inspection should be carried out. This note confirms that if a legitimate person requests inspection of the EOI file, access is granted to the extent necessary for that person to safeguard his/her legitimate interests. However, the request letter itself is not disclosed in any case. The entitled persons may inspect the file insofar as this is necessary to protect their legitimate interest. Liechtenstein noted that under certain prerequisites the inspection of file documents may be restricted or even completely refused for some documents and procedural acts. Inspection of files is only granted upon request. The scope of information shared depends on the person that has exercised its right of inspection. In practice this means that taxpayers under investigation would usually have the legal right to inspect the EOI file. Most requests to inspect the file come from them. If several taxpayers are under investigation, an individual taxpayer may only inspect those file documents concerning him/her. The information holder, as being the one usually requested to provide the information, also has the legal right to inspect the file. If information is gathered from different information holders, the right to inspect is also limited to the extent necessary for the respective information holders to safeguard their legitimate interests. Liechtenstein noted that in no case since the last follow-up (1 September 2020 until 30 November 2023) has a person, not being already subject to the request (taxpayer, person involved in the tax case or information holder), asked to be part of the internal proceedings. Liechtenstein has responded to 299 requests from 1 June 2021 to 30 November 2023. In none of these cases have persons not already being involved with the case asked to be part of the internal proceedings. On average less than 2 parties ask to be part of the proceedings, which are usually the taxpayer under investigation and sometimes also the information holder. Furthermore, the average processing time for those 299 cases was 69 days, i.e. the process has not unduly delayed exchange of information. Liechtenstein considers that these details demonstrate that in practice the Liechtenstein CA does not disproportionately or unnecessarily inform about the request or the requested information. Furthermore, in practice the right to inspect the EOI file has not led to unreasonable delays in the provision of the requested information.
Conclusion	Liechtenstein has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. The overall analysis of Liechtenstein's submissions and the discussion in the 2019 Report indicate that the notification provisions are such that some of the "entitled persons" are notified by the information holder. There is no specific guidance for the information holders on how to decide whom to notify and what to include in such notifications, but the Liechtenstein authorities inform that in their experience and based on confirmation from their industry representatives, the information holders are restrictive in notifying relevant persons especially due to their professional secrecy obligations. Although Liechtenstein authorities would not always be aware of all persons who have been notified, it is the Competent Authority that manages access to the EOI file in the event any notified person seeks to exercise their right to access the EOI file. In respect of the practical measures that have been put in place by Liechtenstein to safeguard the access to the EOI file and limiting access to only relevant portions for the entitled persons, the efforts are notable. Thus, the practical implementation concerns reflected in the recommendation in respect of Confidentiality appear to be addressed satisfactorily.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate action required.

Element C.4: Rights and Safeguards

5. Exceptions to requirement to provide information

 

Recommendation (C.4, practice)	Liechtenstein should monitor that the application of the concept of ordre public does not prevent effective exchange of information and, if necessary, take measures to correct it.
Underlying factor	Liechtenstein was able to process the majority of requests initially identified as based on stolen data. However, some of them have not been processed and it is not clear how larger volumes of such requests would be efficiently handled, in particular if challenged in court (see paragraphs 344 et seq. of Liechtenstein’s 2019 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Liechtenstein has stated that the Administrative Court clarified in February 2019 (VGH 2019/011; after the cut-off date for the 2019 Report) that an international agreement takes precedence over the Tax Administrative Assistance Act. The Constitutional Court confirmed this decision in May 2019 (StGH 2019/27). Consequently, a request cannot be denied based on ordre public in relation to the argument that the request is based on information that has been obtained by way of an act that is judicially punishable in Liechtenstein (i.e. stolen data, see Article 8(2) of the Tax Administrative Assistance Act). If the international agreement does not allow the denial of a request due to stolen data, a request cannot be denied. Based on those decisions, all pending cases have subsequently been fully answered. Ever since, no new request was sent to Liechtenstein, which covered stolen data, hence the application of this new practice has not been tested in practice. However, since court decisions have to be considered by the Liechtenstein Competent Authority for all future cases, the argument of stolen data can no longer be brought forward to deny a request under Article 8(2) of the Tax Administrative Assistance Act.
Conclusion	Liechtenstein has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. The recommendation under Element C.4 to monitor the application of the concept of ordre public and, if necessary, take corrective measures seems fully addressed by Liechtenstein through the court decisions. These decisions inhibit the denial of a request based on the argument that information pertaining to the request is based on stolen data.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	No immediate action required.

Element C.5: Effective exchange of information

6. Timeliness of responses to requests for information

 

Recommendation (C.5, practice)	Liechtenstein should continue its efforts to ensure timeliness in the provision of requested information.
Underlying factor	Although it is acknowledged that the provision of requested information may be delayed in some cases due to valid reasons, the proportion of requests responded [to] within 90 days and within 180 days does not fully correspond with effective exchange of information. (see paragraphs 359 et seq. of Liechtenstein’s 2019 Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Liechtenstein has indicated that the timeliness of sending responses has improved, as from the requests received from January to November 2023, 83% were fully responded to within 90 days, 97% within 180 days and 100% within 1 year. Additionally, status updates were necessary in 12 cases and in all these cases the update was made before the 90 days deadline. The period from 2019 to 2023 shows significant improvements compared to the numbers stated in the 2019 Report.
Conclusion	Liechtenstein has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation. The information provided demonstrates strong improvement in the timeliness of responses. Based on the statistics provided, Liechtenstein continued its efforts to ensure timeliness in the provision of requested information.
Status determined	Considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)
Actions required	In its next self-assessment, Liechtenstein should provide updated timeliness statistics for the corresponding monitoring period, according to paragraph 53 of the methodology for enhanced monitoring.

EOIR experience

Over the monitoring period 2023–2024, Liechtenstein received 262 requests and did not send any. Austria, France and Spain were the top three partners in respect of incoming requests. Liechtenstein reported providing full and final responses in 92% of all the received requests and indicated 3% as pending requests. Remaining requests were withdrawn by the treaty partners.

Seven members provided peer input on Liechtenstein. Peers reported general satisfaction in respect of their EOIR experience with Liechtenstein.

Status of in-text recommendations

Liechtenstein has taken necessary steps to address the 11 in-text recommendations made in its 2019 Report. Since the issuance of the Report, none of the issues pertaining to these in-text recommendations have had more than a negligible impact on EOIR in practice. Based on the actions taken by Liechtenstein to address these in-text recommendations and the absence of change in the materiality of the identified issues, 8 of the 11 in-text recommendations are considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review) while 3 are considered no longer sufficiently material.

New developments having a bearing on the EOIR standard

The Tax Administrative Assistance Act has been amended to outline clear guidelines to define the relationship between administrative assistance in tax matters and requirements of data protection law. These aim to ensure that exchange and use of information remain compliant with domestic data protection standards. In addition, provisions of the Tax Administrative Assistance Act-USA, already included in general in the Tax Administrative Assistance Act, are repealed or updated to provide direct reference to the general act.

Liechtenstein has revised its practice with respect to the principle of speciality. Previously, Liechtenstein included a note in its responses that the exchanged information may only be used for tax purposes in relation to the taxpayers specifically covered by the request. After peer input was received in this respect during the earlier enhanced follow-up exercise in 2023, following internal consultation and examination of the legal position, it has been concluded that the domestic law and jurisprudence do not support the earlier approach in respect of confidentiality of the exchanged information. Accordingly, Liechtenstein has confirmed that the information it provides in respect of a taxpayer to treaty partners can be used by such partners also for tax purposes for another taxpayer. In addition, Liechtenstein has amended its internal guidelines and practices accordingly since the end of September 2023.

Next steps

The 6 in-box recommendations and 8 out of 11 in‑text recommendations made in the 2019 Report of Liechtenstein are “considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process (subject to a peer review)’’ while 3 in-text recommendations are considered “no longer sufficiently material”. The following next steps are expected from Liechtenstein:

• Liechtenstein is exempted from reporting on these recommendations in its next self-assessment in 2028.

• Liechtenstein must, nevertheless, continue submitting a self-assessment report under the enhanced monitoring process to

  • report any new domestic developments (legal, administrative or any judicial pronouncement) that may have a bearing on the implementation of the EOIR standard in the self-assessment report,

  • report statistical information on its EOIR experience during the monitoring period.

  • provide a response on any other matter having a bearing on the EOIR standard when specifically requested.

• Further, Liechtenstein’s response on any issues with broader implications on compliance with the standard, raised in peer input, will continue to be sought under the enhanced monitoring process.

• Liechtenstein must report actions to address any future recommendations pertaining to the EOIR standard that may be issued to it under the Global Forum’s monitoring and review processes.

Views/response of the monitored jurisdiction

Liechtenstein wishes to thank the Assessment Panel, the Global Forum Secretariat and the Peer Review and Monitoring Group for their work on its Enhanced Monitoring Report. Liechtenstein’s Enhanced Monitoring Report has been handled in a fair and objective process.

Liechtenstein takes note with satisfaction that the progress made since the Second Round Peer Review Report from November 2019 has been positively reflected in the report and that all in-box recommendations as well as eight in-text recommendations are considered addressed in the context of the monitoring process while the remaining three in-text recommendations are considered as no longer sufficiently material. Liechtenstein appreciates that its high level of compliance with the OECD EOI standards is recognised and agrees with the findings of the Enhanced Monitoring Report.

Liechtenstein values the long-standing and constructive bilateral cooperation with its exchange partners which is built on the principle of trust. Liechtenstein considers compliance with international tax transparency standards as an important part of its international tax policy and financial centre strategy and reaffirms its commitment to effective cooperation in tax matters.

Note

← 1.  OECD (2019), Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Liechtenstein 2019 (Second Round): Peer Review Report on the Exchange of Information on Request, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/299793c5-en.