COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Luxembourg Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Luxembourg, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 315 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Luxembourg Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report      The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Luxembourgish  justice  system  is  marked  by  a  high  level  of  perceived  judicial 
independence  and  an  overall  good  level  of  efficiency.  A  constitutional  reform  is  being 
discussed  in  Parliament  to  further  strengthen  judicial  independence,  by  anchoring  it  in  the 
Constitution  and  by  establishing  a  council  for  the  judiciary.  As  regards  the  quality  of  the 
justice system, measures are underway to foster the digitalisation of justice, which currently 
leaves  room  for  improvement.  In  particular,  the  availability  of  means  to  submit  cases, 
transmit summons and monitor legal proceedings online could be improved. Additionally, a 
reform of the legal aid system is being discussed to simplify certain procedures and make it 
accessible to a larger number of citizens. The efficiency of civil justice is consistently high, 
but data on administrative justice are still needed.  

Luxembourg has the legal and institutional anti-corruption framework broadly in place. There 
is no specific anti-corruption strategy nor anti-corruption agency in place and the Ministry of 
Justice is in charge of the overall policy coordination. The institutional framework to prevent 
and  fight  corruption  is  divided  between  several  authorities.  Corruption  is  tackled  by  the 
prosecution  service  from  a  financial  and  economic  crime  angle,  whilst  the  Court  of  Audit 
controls  the  financial  management  of  the  organs,  administrations  and  services  of  the  State. 
Shortages  as  regards  resources  of  the  prosecution  have  been  reported  and  the  recruitment 
process  and  resource  allocation  are  being  reviewed.  There  is  stronger  focus  on  preventive 
measures  such  as  a  Code  of  Ethics  and  a  Code  of  Conducts  for  ministers  and  members  of 
Parliament.  Furthermore,  lobbying  and  ‘revolving  doors’  are  not  regulated  and  no  national 
lobby register has been established.  

The  audiovisual  media  regulator  functions  independently,  although  there  are  concerns  as 
regards its effectiveness, notably in view of limited human resources and the large number of 
foreign services licensed in the country. All entities registered in the Luxembourg Business 
Register, including media companies, have to provide detailed information on their ultimate 
beneficial  owners  and  make  such  information  publicly  accessible.  The  law  on  freedom  of 
expression  in  media  ensures  protection  for  journalists  and,  overall,  the  framework  for 
journalists’ protection is robust. There were no reports of threats against journalists in recent 
years. Some concerns exist regarding delays in dealing with requests for access to documents 
held by public authorities.  

The  process  for  enacting  laws  includes  conducting  impact  assessments  and  stakeholder 
consultations, and independent authorities play an important role in the system of checks and 
balances. A separate constitutional reform adopted on 15 May 2020 reinforced the role of the 
Constitutional  Court  and  remedies  the  situation  where  a  legal  provision  declared 
unconstitutional continues to create legal effects. Another proposed reform still under debate 
in  the  Parliament  seeks  to  anchor  the  Ombudsman  institution  in  the  Constitution,  which 
would  contribute  to  further  strengthening  this  institution.  Furthermore,  Luxembourg  is 
considered  to  have  an  open  civil  society  landscape,  and  recent  initiatives  aim  at  further 
fostering this environment.  

1 

 
 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The justice system contains two separate branches of courts: ordinary courts with jurisdiction 
in  civil  and  criminal  matters  and  administrative  courts  hearing  cases  of  administrative  law. 
The  ordinary  branch  includes  three  Justices  of  the  Peace,  two  District  Courts  with  general 
jurisdiction,  a  Court  of  Appeal  and  a  Court  of  Cassation.1  The  administrative  branch  is 
composed of an Administrative First-instance Court and an Administrative Court of Appeal. 
The  Constitutional  Court  rules  on  the  compliance  of  laws  with  the  Constitution.  Candidate 
judges  are  selected  by  a  committee  composed  exclusively  of  judges  and  subsequently 
formally appointed by the executive2. For posts at the Supreme Court and the Administrative 
Appeal Court, judges are appointed by the executive on the advice of the Supreme Court or 
of  the  Administrative  court,  respectively.  The  prosecution  service  is  independent  but 
prosecution  is  exercised  under  the  authority  of  the  Minister  of  Justice.  The  two  Bar 
associations are independent and represent lawyers established in Luxembourg.  

Independence 

The level of perceived independence of the judiciary is high. Among the population, 74% 
consider the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’, as well as 
74%  of  businesses.3  While  the  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  among  the  general 
population has been consistent over the last years, the perception among businesses is subject 
to more fluctuation.4  

A  planned  revision  of  the  Constitution  would  introduce  new  elements  to  further 
strengthen judicial independence. Currently, the justice system does not include a council 
for the judiciary On 5 May 2020, a constitutional revision was proposed to establish such a 
council,  which  would  be  competent  to  nominate  candidate-judges  for  all  positions,  prior  to 
their formal appointment by the executive.5 Furthermore, the council would have the power 
to initiate disciplinary cases regarding judges,6 to give advice on matters related to the justice 
system  and  to  develop  ethics  standards  applicable  to  the  judiciary.7  The  council  would  be 
composed  of  nine  members:  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  President  of  the 
Administrative Court of Appeal,  the State Prosecutor General, three judges  elected by their 
peers,  two  representatives  of  civil  society  and  academia8  and  a  lawyer9.  The  proposed 
constitutional revision will still be the subject of further debates in Parliament. It is important 
that  the  envisaged  reform  in  its  final  form  take  account  of  relevant  Council  of  Europe 
standards10. Additionally, the proposed constitutional revision would explicitly enshrine the 

1   Several other courts with specialised jurisdiction exist. 
2   Judges are formally appointed by the Grand Duke.  
3   While 13% of the general population and 16% of companies indicate that they perceive the level of judicial 
independence  to  be  ‘very  good’  and  61%  of  the  general  population  and  58%  of  companies  perceive  it  as 
‘fairly good’, only 9% of the general population and 5% of companies indicate that they perceive the level of 
judicial  independence  to  be  ‘fairly  or  very  bad’.  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  Figures  44  and  46, 
Eurobarometer  survey.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as  follows:  very  low 
(below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); low (between 30-
39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

4   2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
5   Judges are formally appointed by the Grand Duke. 
6   Currently, this competence resides with the State Prosecutor General. 
7   GRECO  has  also  recommended  that  the  Council  be  involved  in  disciplinary  decisions  concerning 

prosecutors, GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation report, recommendation xiv. 

8   Designated by Parliament.  
9   Designated by the two bar associations. 
10   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras. 26-27. 

2 

 
                                                 
independence of judges in the Constitution. While the original draft revision provided for the 
inclusion of the independence of both judges and of the prosecution service11, the most recent 
version mentions only the independence of judges, which has raised concerns among certain 
stakeholders.12 This revision will also still be debated in Parliament.  

The  power  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  order  the  prosecution  of  a  specific  case  is  not 
used  in  practice  and  is  accompanied  by  safeguards.  While  the  prosecution  service  is 
recognised  as  independent,  the  prosecution  is  exercised  formally  under  the  authority  of  the 
Minister  of  Justice.  The  Minister  has  the  competence  to  instruct  the  prosecution  service  to 
prosecute an individual case, but may not order to refrain from prosecution. In case a specific 
instruction to prosecute is given, it must be reasoned and issued in written form, and parties 
to the court proceedings have access to the instruction.13 Moreover, it appears that the power 
to give specific instructions is not used in practice. The legal safeguards in place, combined 
with  the  current  practice,  appear  to  mitigate  the  risk  to  the  autonomy  of  the  prosecution 
service.14  

Quality 

The  process  of  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system  is  ongoing.  There  remains  room  to 
improve the digitalisation of the justice system. In particular, online information provision to 
the general public about the justice system, and the availability of electronic means to submit 
cases,  to  transmit  summons  and  to  monitor  legal  proceedings,  are  currently  low.15  While 
judgments of most courts can be accessed online, publication is usually reserved for landmark 
cases.16  To  foster  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system,  the  “paperless  justice”  (JUPAL) 
project aims to provide further information on the justice system to the public by establishing 
a  portal  where  citizens  can  connect  with  lawyers,  judges  and  notaries,  and  to  increase  the 
online publication rate of court judgments. The project is expected to be completed in 2026.  

Discussions  are  ongoing  on  a  reform  of  the  legal  aid  system.  The  legal  aid  framework 
currently only provides for the possibility to fully reimburse lawyers’ fees and covered legal 
costs, with the threshold for eligibility in a consumer case lying below the Eurostat poverty 
threshold.17  In  that  regard,  discussions  are  underway  on  a  reform  of  the  system  to  simplify 
administrative procedures and to also offer partial legal aid, if certain conditions are fulfilled. 
Such a reform would aim to make (partial) legal aid accessible to a larger number of citizens, 
thereby improving access to justice.  

11   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2019)003), para. 102.  
12   Information received in the context of the country visit. See also for example: Groupement des Magistrats 

Luxembourgeois, Open letter to the members of Parliament, 2020.  

13   Figure 55, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
14   Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 13(d). “where 
the government has the power to give instructions to prosecute a specific case, such instructions must carry 
with  them  adequate  guarantees  that  transparency  and  equity  are  respected  in  accordance  with  national 
law”. As regards the safeguards, see para 13 (points d to e). See also in the context of the European Arrest 
Warrant: judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 May 2019, OG (Parquet de Lubeck), Joined Cases C-508/18 
and  C-82/19  PPU,  in  which  the  Court  held  that  in  the  context  to  such  a  warrant  for  the  purpose  of 
prosecution,  the  concept  of  ‘issuing  judicial  authority’  must  be  interpreted  as  not  including  public 
prosecutors’ offices of a Member State which are exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, 
to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive. 

15   Figures 22 & 27, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
16   Figure 28, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
17   Figure 23, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

3 

 
                                                 
Efficiency 

While  civil justice  performs  efficiently  overall,  certain  data  are  lacking  as  regards  the 
functioning  of  administrative  justice.  The  efficiency  of  civil  justice  is  consistently  high, 
although  the  length  of  proceedings  is  significantly  longer  at  second  and  at  third  instance.18 
The number of pending civil cases is low,19 and a consistent clearance rate of around 100% 
shows  that  civil  justice  deals  with  its  caseload  effectively.20  Data  are  lacking,  however,  as 
regards  the  length  of  court  proceedings  and  the  number  of  pending  cases  in  administrative 
justice.21  This  does  not  allow  for  having  a  clear  overview  of  the  overall  efficiency  of  the 
justice system. 

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

The  institutional  framework  to  prevent  and  fight  corruption  is  shared  between  several 
authorities. The Ministry of Justice is the main authority in charge of policy coordination and 
overall  corruption  matters.  Within  the  Ministry,  an  intergovernmental  committee,  the 
Corruption  Prevention  Committee,  acts  as  a  consultative  forum  and  supports  the  overall 
national policy to fight corruption. While there is no specialised anti-corruption prosecution 
authority as such, the Economic and Financial section of the Prosecutor’s Office has specific 
competences  to  investigate  criminal  cases  of  economic  and  financial  nature,  including 
corruption cases.  

the 

latest  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by  Transparency  International, 
In 
Luxembourg  scored  80/100,  and  ranked  5th  in  the  European  Union  and  9th  globally.22 
Amongst the respondents, while 42% perceive corruption as widespread (EU average 71%), 
only  6%  declared  that  corruption  affects  their  daily  life  (EU  average  26%).23  As  regards 
businesses  perception,  26%  companies  perceive  corruption  as  widespread  (EU  average  of 
63%) and 41% of companies believe that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU 
average  37%).  25%  people  consider  that  there  are  enough  successful  prosecutions  to  deter 
people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  of  36%),  while  57%  of  companies  believe  that 
people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU 
average of 31%).24 

No  national  anti-corruption  strategy  is  in  place.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  is  in  charge  of 
overall policy coordination on anti-corruption. Within the Ministry of Justice, the Committee 
for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (COPRECO)  acts  as  a  consultative  forum  and  proposes 
measures  for  an  effective  fight  against  corruption  both  at  national  and  international  level. 
Follow-up  to  COPRECO’s  activity  can  be  of  two  different  types:  legislative  or  awareness-
raising. For instance, the 2011 Whistleblower legislation originated from discussions within 
COPRECO.  The  Committee  is  supposed  to  meet  at  least  twice  a  year.  However,  no  data 
regarding its meetings and or annual reports are publicly available. 

18   2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
19   Figure 14, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
20   Figure 11, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
21   Figures 5, 8, 9, 13 and 15, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. Comparative data on the efficiency of the justice 
system is gathered by CEPEJ in the context of the EU Justice Scoreboard. For Luxembourg, these specific 
data are not available. 

22   Transparency International, Country profile: Luxembourg. 
23   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020).  
24   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).  

4 

 
                                                 
The institutional framework to prevent and fight corruption is divided between several 
authorities. These include the Ministry of Justice, the Court of Audit, the Prosecution, and 
the  Police.  The  competences  of  the  Economic  and  Financial  section  of  the  Prosecutor’s 
Office focus on combating financial crime in general rather than specifically on corruption. 
The  Financial  Intelligence  Unit  together  with  the  Economic  and  Financial  department 
investigate corruption-related  offences  stemming  from  financial  crimes.  As  far  as  resources 
of  the  prosecution  are  concerned,  shortages  have  been  reported  in  the  past  year.25  Issues 
regarding  insufficient  resources  are  aggravated  by  the  increasingly  complex  nature  of 
financial  crimes.  In  this  context,  the  recruitment  process  and  resources  allocation are  being 
reviewed.26 

The  Court  of  Audit  controls  the  financial  management  of  the  organs,  administrations 
and  services  of  the  State.  It  is  also  empowered  to  audit  legal  persons  under  public  law, 
provided that these persons are not subject to another financial control provided for by law. 
All  legal  persons  governed  by  public  law  and  natural  and  legal  persons  of  private  law 
receiving public financial aid for a specific purpose may be subject to the supervision of the 
Court of Audit, as to the purposeful use of these public funds. 27 The Court of Audit also has 
jurisdiction over the financing of political parties.28  

Legislation  has  been  adopted  with  regard  to  conflicts  of  interest  and  declarations  of 
assets  for  members  of  Government  and  civil  servants.  As  for  ministers,  the  Code  of 
Conduct, rules on declaration of assets, holding of managerial or board positions, acceptance 
of  gifts  and declarations  of  interests  are  in  place.  The  Code  of  Conduct  was  also  evaluated 
positively by GRECO, which highlighted that room for improvement remained with regard to 
oversight mechanisms, since the Code is mainly self-regulatory29. An Ethics Committee has 
been established in 2018. The Ethics Committee has an advisory role, issuing opinions on the 
interpretation of the Code of Conduct. Since its establishment, six cases have been brought 
before the Committee. The letters which  refer cases  to  the Committee are published on the 
Government website, which has a section dedicated also to the opinion issued by the Ethics 
Committee and therefore made public.30 A Code of Conduct for members of Parliament from 
2014 in matters of financial interests and conflicts of interest is in place.31 Irregularities can 
be investigated up request by the President of the Chamber or if reported by citizens, when 
found in relation with members of Parliament’s declaration of assets which are made publicly 
available.  In  order  to  further  detail  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  members  of  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies, an implementing instrument was adopted in 201832. Luxembourg has also adopted 
a  Code  of  Ethics  for  its  police  force  in  December  201933.  The  police  force  has  also 
strengthened its ethical training for its members. 

25   Ministry of Justice (2019), Annual activity report of 2018, chapter 3.1, p. 171. 
26   Works are being done under the project law 7452 on establishing and organizing the asset management and 

recovery office.  

27   Amended law of 8 June 1999 on the Organization of the Court of Audit.  
28   Court of Audit (2018), Activity report of 2018.  
29   GRECO  (2018),  Fifth  evaluation  round  –  Evaluation  report  on  Luxembourg  on  preventing  corruption  and 

promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies.  

30   Government of Luxembourg, Government web page.  
31   Chamber of Deputies (2019), Rules of the Chamber of Deputies, point 20, p. 6.  
32   This  was  done  in  order  to  follow  up  on  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report, 
recommendation  i.  However,  GRECO  still  considered  the  recommendation  partly  implemented.  GRECO 
Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report, pp. 2-5.  
33   Follow-up on a recommendation from the GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round. 

5 

 
                                                 
Lobbying and ‘revolving doors’ are not regulated. Rules concerning conflicts of interest, 
secondary employment, membership of a corporate board or holding of managerial position 
are included in the Code of Conduct for Ministers, but none of these regulate lobbying.34 As 
for lobbying rules applicable to members of Parliament, the Code of Ethics for Members of 
the  Parliament35  envisages  that  they must  act  in  the  public  interest,  and interviews must  be 
carried  out  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Rules  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  which 
regulates  on-site  visits  but  not  unofficial  contacts  or  reporting  on  activities  such  as 
Government  questions  or  works  in  commissions  of  inquiry.36  Several  rules  exist  to  prevent 
conflicts  of  interest  of  civil  servants  arising  from  acceptance  of  gifts  and  secondary 
employment.  These  rules  are  laid  down  in  chapter  5  of  the  Civil  Servants  Act,  1979. 
However,  there  are  no  provisions  addressing  post-employment  and  contacts  with  third 
parties. As regards ‘revolving doors’, there are no provisions addressing ‘revolving doors’ for 
civil  servants.  Some  provisions  are  however  applicable  as  foreseen  in  the  Code  of  Ethics 
applicable  to  the  members  of  the  Government.  In  the  context  of  the  implementation  of 
GRECO’s Fifth Evaluation Round, the Government is currently working on new ethical rules 
applicable  to  ministers  and  senior  civil  servants  concerning  the  exercise  of  a  new 
occupational  activity  after  leaving  office.  The  form  that  those  rules  will  take  has  yet  to  be 
determined.  

A  National  Action  Plan  to  improve  the  legislation  on  access  to  information  for  2019-
2021 has been adopted. The aim of this action plan is to further implement the principles of 
open  government,  in  particular  by  enhancing  access  to  information,  fostering  civic 
participation  and  mainstreaming  the  highest  standards  of  professional  integrity  in  the  civil 
service.  An  outcome  of  this  Action  Plan  has  been  the  implementation  of  the  Law  of  14 
September 2018 on a transparent and open administration, which gives the public at large the 
right to access documents, and which established an independent commission to monitor that 
the  right  is respected.  Given  the recent  adoption  and  broad scope  of  the  law,  it is  expected 
that the future decisions of the Commission will clarify points such as the scope of exceptions 
or limitations to access certain documents. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

The  legal  framework  concerning  media  pluralism  is  based  on  a  set  of  constitutional  and 
legislative safeguards. Freedom of expression is explicitly recognised in the Constitution and 
protected  by  national  law.  The  Law  on  Electronic  Media  guarantees  the  financial  and 
administrative independence of the audiovisual media regulator.37 

its  own 

The regulatory authority for audiovisual media services is an independent public body 
with 
legal  personality.  The  Autorité  Luxembourgeoise  Indépendante  de 
l’Audiovisuel (ALIA) is responsible for monitoring the application of regulatory requirements 
related  to  audiovisual  services  and  media.  Its  supervisory  activities  cover  traditional 
television, on-demand services (VOD) and national, regional and local radio stations38. The 
independence of the Authority is formally recognised by the law on electronic media39, which 

34   GRECO (2018), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, paras. 66-69.  
35   Art. 5, Rules of the Chamber of Deputies.  
36   Chamber of Deputies (2019), Rules of the Chamber of Deputies.  
37   In 2020, Luxembourg is at 17th position worldwide in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom 

Index. See: https://rsf.org/en/ranking.  

38   Independent Audiovisual Authority of Luxembourg, web page of the Independent Audiovisual Authority of 

Luxembourg.  

39   Law of 27 July 1991 on Electronic Media.  

6 

 
                                                 
provides,  in  particular,  that  the  Authority  is  financially  and  administratively  independent.40 
Concerns have been raised about the full independence of the regulatory authority, notably as 
regards  the  nomination  procedure,  since  the  Government  is  ultimately  responsible  for  the 
nomination and dismissal of the members of the board of governors and of its director (after 
consultation of the board)41. In this context, it should be recalled that the revised Audiovisual 
Media  Services  Directive  (AVMSD)  sets  out  specific  guarantees  for  the  independence  and 
effectiveness of national media regulators. The law transposing the Directive was presented 
to Parliament in the summer of 2020. ALIA is a recent institution, established in December 
2013.  The  limited  resources  of  the  regulatory  authority  in  view  of  the  large  number  of 
audiovisual media services licensed in the country42 are perceived as an issue.43 The decisions 
and opinions of ALIA are available online.44 

The Luxembourgish Press Council45 is a self-regulating body established by law46. It is 
composed of equal numbers of publishers and journalists. The members are appointed by a 
grand-ducal  decree,  based  on  a  proposal  of  the  respective  associations.  It  is  in  charge  of 
issuing professional press cards and of the self-regulation of the profession. It has published a 
code  of  conduct47  on  the  rights  and  duties  of  journalists  and  editors.  The  Press  Council’s 
Complaints  Commission  treats  complaints  on  editorial  content.  It  may  also  issue 
recommendations and guidelines on matters regarding freedom of expression in the media or 
the  work  of  journalists  and  editors.  Its  independence  is  formally  recognised  in  the  Law  on 
Electronic Media. Decisions of the Complaints Commission are published on the Council’s 
website. 

A  legal  framework  is  established  as  regards  transparency  of  media  ownership.  A  law 
from  201948  requires  all  Luxembourg  entities  registered  in  the  Luxembourg  Business 
Register,  including  media  companies,  to  provide  detailed  information  on  their  ultimate 
beneficial owners. The law stipulates that this information has to be publicly accessible. As 
regards  the  print  media  sector,  the  law  requires  companies  concerned  to  publish  their 
ownership structures only when one shareholder holds more than 25% of the capital, which 
limits  transparency  of  ownership  in  that  sector.  For  audiovisual  media  services,  ALIA 
publishes in its annual report a list of services licenced in Luxembourg, without mentioning 
their  ownership.  It  should  be  recalled  in  this  regard  that  the  revised  AVMSD  encourages 
Member  States  to  adopt  legislative  measures  providing  that  media  service  providers  under 
their jurisdiction make accessible information concerning their ownership structure, including 
the beneficial owners.  

The  Government  makes  an  active  contribution  to  support  news  media.  There  is  no 
legislation on the distribution of state advertising to media outlets, and complete information 
on  indirect  subsidies  is  not  available  either.  The  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  (MPM)  2020 
indicates, however, that they constitute an important source of revenue for many publishers. 

40   The revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) sets out a range of specific guarantees for the 

independence and effectiveness of national media regulators.  

41   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor.  
42   Many media service providers from different countries have a Luxembourgish license.  
43   Information received in the context of the country visit.  
44   Independent  Audiovisual  Authority  of  Luxembourg,  web  page  containing  decisions  and  opinions  of  the 

Independent Audiovisual Authority of Luxembourg.  

45   Luxembourg Press Council, web page on the Luxembourg Press Council.  
46   Coordinated text of 30 April 2010 on the Law of 8 June 2004 on Freedom of Expression in the Media.  
47   Luxembourg Press Council (2006), Code of ethics.  
48   Law of 13 January 2019 Establishing a Register of Beneficial Owners.  

7 

 
                                                 
In Luxembourg, the printed press is supported by a public aid scheme49 consisting of a basic 
amount,  identical  for  all  eligible  newspapers,  and  a  proportional  amount  calculated  on  the 
basis of the quantity of pages. A fixed amount of EUR 100,000 is allocated to online media 
fulfilling  the  necessary  criteria50.  The  total  amount  of  the  distributed  aid  is  published 
annually.  In  2019,  EUR 7.8  million  were  allocated  to  news  publishers.  In  May  2020,  the 
Government announced the establishment of an extraordinary indemnity for the media in the 
context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.51  Furthermore,  a  reform  of  the  press  aid  scheme  was 
adopted  by  the  Council  of  Government  in  July  2020  and  is  currently  in  the  legislative 
process.  The  new  regime  would  be  technologically  neutral  and  apply  equally  to  print  and 
online news media.  

The framework for the protection of journalists is based on a set of constitutional and 
legislative safeguards. In particular, the law on freedom of expression in the media provides 
protection  for  the  journalists  working  in  Luxembourg.  Journalists  are  legally  protected  in 
cases  of editorial change,52 and journalistic sources  are well protected too. Imprisonment is 
among  the  envisaged  sanctions  for  defamation53,  but  criminal  defamation  prosecutions 
against  the  media  are  rare.54  In  one  case  in  2018  (during  the  investigation  of  the  so-called 
“Chamber-Leaks”/“Parliament-Leaks” 
the  National  Union  of  Professional 
incident), 
Journalists alleged that criminal investigations were an intimidation attempt. There were no 
reports of threats against journalists in Luxembourg in recent years, either on the Council of 
Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  or  on 
Mapping Media Freedom.  

A  legislative  framework  exists  to  safeguard  the  right  to  information.  The  right  to 
information  was  enshrined  in  legislation  in  September  2018.55  The  law  ensures  that  every 
natural or legal person has the right to access documents held by the public authorities. From 
the viewpoint of the effectiveness of the law, however, the Luxembourg Union of Journalists 
(ALJP)  observes  that  there  are  still  cases  where  information  is  provided  with  a  substantial 
delay that is incompatible with the nature of journalistic reporting.56 

49   Government of Luxembourg, web page on help for the written press.  
https://smc.gouvernement.lu/fr/service/medias/presse/Presse_ecrite.html.  
50   Government of Luxembourg, web page on help for the online press.  

https://smc.gouvernement.lu/fr/service/medias/presse/aide-a-la-presse.html.  

51   Government of Luxembourg, web page on extraordinary compensation for the media in the context of the 

COVID-19 pandemic.  

https://smc.gouvernement.lu/fr/actualites.gouvernement%2Bfr%2Bactualites%2Btoutes_actualites%2Bcommuni

ques%2B2020%2B05-mai%2B07-indemnite-medias.html.  

52   Chapter III of the Law of 30 April 2010 on the Law of 8 June 2004 on Freedom of Expression in the Media. 
53   https://cmpf.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/decriminalisation-of-defamation_Infographic.pdf. 
54   MPM  2020  mentions  the  “affaire  Lunghi”  in  which  three  people  have  been  convicted  in  2019.  Another 
recent  court  case  involves  a  businessman  who  brought  charges  of  defamation  in  three  countries  against  a 
journalist of the daily Luxemburger Wort as well as its editor-in-chief and director for publishing an article 
critically covering his business activities. Charges were dropped in Luxembourg in August 2019. 

55   Law of 14 September 2018 on a Transparent and Open Administration. 
56   ALJP interview in Delano (2019), Freedom of information for press: “it’s really a necessity”. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
 
IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Luxembourg  has  a  unicameral57  parliamentary  system  of  government,  in  which  legislative 
proposals can originate from the Government and from members of Parliament. The Council 
of State gives an advisory opinion on draft legislation, whether proposed by the Government 
or  by  members  of  Parliament.  The  Constitutional  Court  scrutinises  the  constitutionality  of 
legislation.  Independent  authorities  play  an  important  role  in  the  system  of  checks  and 
balances. 

Impact  assessments  and  stakeholder  consultations  are  part  of  the  legislative  process. 
Legislative proposals by the Government are subject to an impact assessment before they are 
submitted to the Chamber of Deputies. Depending on its subject matter, the draft legislation 
is also submitted for an advisory opinion to the Economic and Social Council or to one of the 
five  specialised  professional  chambers  if  it  touches  upon  an  area  that  these  chambers  are 
competent  for.58  Open  consultations  for  the  public  at  large  may  also  be  organised  and  are 
increasingly  held  online.59  Advisory  opinions  of  the  Council  of  State,  of  the  professional 
chambers,  as  well  as  the  parliamentary  proceedings  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  can  be 
consulted both online and in print.60  

A state of emergency was declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of 
emergency  was  declared  on  18  March  2020  and  prolonged  six  days  later.  The  emergency 
state,  which  is  foreseen  by  the  Constitution,61  allowed  the  Government  to  adopt  adequate, 
necessary and proportionate measures in all matters for a limited amount of time. Legislation 
adopted after the end of the state of emergency on 24 June 2020 prolonged certain measures 
relating to the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of September.62 

Several independent authorities fulfil key roles in safeguarding fundamental rights. The 
National  Human  Rights  Institution,  the  CCDH63,  is  accredited  with  ‘A’  status  by  the  UN 
Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. The consultative body gives opinions 
and recommendations on matters related to fundamental rights, either on its own initiative or 
at  the  request  of  the  Government.64  The  CCDH  falls  under  the  authority  of  the  Prime 
Minister, but operates independently in practice. It is part of a broader structure of institutions 
protecting fundamental rights, which also includes the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman for the 
Rights of the Child, the National Commission for Data Protection and the Centre for Equal 
Treatment.  To  facilitate  citizens’  access  to  institutions  protecting  fundamental  rights,  the 
Government intends to house those bodies together in one House of Human Rights.  

Recent initiatives aim to foster the landscape for civil society. Luxembourg is considered 
to have an open civil society landscape,65 and recent efforts aim at further strengthening the 
civil society landscape. The Government recently established two consultative bodies under 

57   The parliament is composed of the Chamber of Deputies.  
58   There are five of such specialised consultative chambers.  
59   OECD (2019), Indicators of regulatory policy and governance 2019: Luxembourg, p. 2.  
60   The Amended Law of 14 September 2018 on a Transparent and Open Administration.  
61   Article 32(4) of the Luxembourgish Constitution.  
62   These  include  rules  on  gatherings  and  assemblies,  as  well  as  pecuniary  sanctions  for  certain  violations  of 

COVID-19 measures.  

63   Commission consultative des Droits de l’Homme.  
64   Regulation of 26 May 2000 Establishing a Consultative Commission on Human Rights.  
65   See  the  rating  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

9 

 
                                                 
the National Action Plan for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities 2019-2024, to foster cooperation between civil society and the government 
by providing a forum for discussion.66 Stakeholders consider that the civil society landscape 
could  be  further  improved  by  introducing  privacy  guarantees  in  the  existing  rules  of 
registration for non-profit organisations.67 

A recent constitutional reform introduced changes relevant for the system of checks and 
balances. A constitutional revision of 15 May 2020 reinforced the effects of Constitutional 
Court decisions declaring a legal provision unconstitutional. The Constitution now provides 
that  such  provisions  cease  to  have  legal  effect  from  the  day  following  the  Constitutional 
Court ruling onward, unless the Court itself orders a different timing.68 It also states that the 
Court  determines  the  conditions  and  limitations  of  the  effect  of  the  decision  on  effects  that 
the unconstitutional provision has created. This constitutional revision remedies the situation 
where  a  legal  provision  declared  unconstitutional  continues  to  create  legal  effects. 
Furthermore,  a  proposed  revision  of  the  constitution  foresees  to  enshrine  the  office  of  the 
Ombudsman in the text of the constitution itself.69 The revision is still at the stage of debates 
in  the  Parliament.  This  anchoring  of  the  Ombudsman  institution  at  the  constitutional  level 
would contribute to strengthening this institution.70 

66   Input  from  Luxembourg  to  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report  and  information  received  in  the  context  of  the 

country visit. 

67   European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (2020), The rule of law in the European Union: 

reports from national human rights institution; information received in the context of the country visit. 

68   Article 95ter of the Luxembourgish Constitution.  
69   The  proposal  for  a  constitutional  revision  dates  back  to  15  May  2009,  but  the  provision  relating  to  the 
Ombudsman  institution  was  added  later.  It  was  part  of  the  version  sent  to  the  Venice  Commission  for  an 
opinion on 6 June 2018.  

70   Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  opinion  (CDL-AD(2019)005):  ‘The  Ombudsman  institution, 
including its mandate, shall be based on a firm legal foundation, preferably at constitutional level, while its 
characteristics and functions may be further elaborated at the statutory level.’ 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order.* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law Report 

can be found at (COM website).  

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

Chamber 

of 

Deputies 

(2019), 
https://www.chd.lu/wps/wcm/connect/public/406a71a2-1082-4298-b7a0-
dff4e3d61b8b/Reglement+CHD_11022020.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&ContentCache=NONE&CACH
E=NONE&CVID=n0-deSF&CVID=n0-deSF.  

Chamber 

Rules 

the 

of 

of 

Deputies. 

CIVICUS, 

Monitor 

tracking 

civic 

space: 

Luxembourg. 

https://monitor.civicus.org/country/luzembourg/.  

Council of Europe (1999), Criminal law convention on corruption.  

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee 

of Ministers to member states on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system.  

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2019), Luxembourg - Opinion on the proposed revision of 

the Constitution (CDL-AD(2019)003).  

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2019),  Principles  on  the  protection  and  promotion  of  the 

Ombudsman institution (the Venice principles) (CDL-AD(2019)005). 

Council of the European Union (1995), Council act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the 

protection of the European Communities' financial interests C 316/48.  

Council of the European Union (2003), Council framework decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 

on combating corruption in the private sector L 192.  

Court  of  Audit 

(2018),  Activity 

report  of  2018.  https://cour-des-comptes.public.lu/dam-

assets/fr/rapports/rapport-activites/Rapport-d-activite-2018.pdf.  

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 27 May 2019 in joined cases OG, C-508/18 and 

PI, C-82/19 PPU. 

Delano 

(2019), 

a 
information 
https://delano.lu/d/detail/news/freedom-information-press-its-really-necessity/205336.  

Freedom 

press: 

really 

“it’s 

for 

of 

necessity”. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Eurobarometer:  perceived  independence  of  the 

national justice system in the EU among the general public. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Eurojust and European Judicial Network (2020), Questionnaire on the CJEU’s judgment in relation to 
the  independence  of  issuing  judicial  authorities  and  effective  judicial  protection:  Updated 
compilation of replies and certificates.  

European Commission (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020), The EU Justice Scoreboard.  

European  Commission  (2019),  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Member  States  have  taken  the  necessary  measures  in 
order  to  comply  with  Council  Framework  Decision  2003/568/JHA  of  22  July  2003  on  combating 
corruption in the private sector COM(2019) 355 final.  

European Commission (2020), Report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision of 13 

June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States.  

11 

 
European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (2020),  The  rule  of  law  in  the  European 

Union: reports from national human rights institutions.  

Government  of  Luxembourg  (2019),  Open  government  partnership  –  Luxembourg  national  action 
https://sip.gouvernement.lu/en/partenariat-gouvernement-ouvert/pan-2019-

2019-2021. 

plan 
2021.html.  

Government  of  Luxembourg,  Government  web  page.  https://gouvernement.lu/fr/systeme-

politique/gouvernement.html.  

Government 

of 

Luxembourg, 

Organization 

of 

justice 

web 

page. 

https://justice.public.lu/fr/organisation-justice.html.  

Government of Luxembourg, web page on extraordinary compensation for the media in the context of 
pandemic. 

the 
https://smc.gouvernement.lu/fr/actualites.gouvernement%2Bfr%2Bactualites%2Btoutes_actualites
%2Bcommuniques%2B2020%2B05-mai%2B07-indemnite-medias.html.  

COVID-19 

Government 

of 

Luxembourg, 

Help 

for 

the 

online 

press 

web 

page. 

https://smc.gouvernement.lu/fr/service/medias/presse/aide-a-la-presse.html.  

Government 

of 

Luxembourg, 

Help 

for 

the 

written 

press 

web 

page. 

https://smc.gouvernement.lu/fr/service/medias/presse/Presse_ecrite.html.  

GRECO  (2013),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report  on  Luxembourg  on  corruption 

prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors.  

GRECO  (2017),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Compliance  Report  on  Luxembourg  on 

corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors.  

GRECO  (2018),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report  on  Luxembourg  on  preventing 
corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law 
enforcement agencies. 

Groupement des Magistrats Luxembourgeois (2020), Open letter to the members of Parliament. 

Independent  Audiovisual  Authority  of  Luxembourg,  Decisions  and  opinions  of  the  Independent 

Audiovisual Authority of Luxembourg web page. https://www.alia.lu/fr/espace-juridique/avis.  

Independent  Audiovisual  Authority  of  Luxembourg,  Independent  Audiovisual  Authority  of 

Luxembourg web page. https://www.alia.lu/fr/.  

Luxembourg Press Council (2006), Code of ethics. http://www.press.lu/informations/deontologie/.  

Luxembourg Press Council, Luxembourg Press Council web page. http://www.press.lu/.  

Luxemburger 

House 
https://www.wort.lu/de/lokales/hausdurchsuchung-bei-radio-100-7-5afab949c1097cee25b895c1.  

(2018), 

search 

Radio 

Wort 

at 

100.7. 

Ministry  of  Justice  (2019),  Annual  activity  report  of  2018.  https://gouvernement.lu/dam-

assets/fr/publications/rapport-activite/minist-justice/2018-rapport-activite-mjust/2018-rapport-
activite-mjust.pdf.  

OECD (2019), Indicators of regulatory policy and governance 2019: Luxembourg. 

Police  of  Luxembourg  (2019),  Code  of  ethics.  https://police.public.lu/fr/publications/2019/code-

deontologie-police.html.  

RTL 

(2018), 

Short 

search 

at  Radio 

100.7 

– 

documents 

already 

deleted. 

https://www.rtl.lu/news/national/a/1180001.html.  

Transparency 

Country 
https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/luxembourg.  

International, 

profile: 

Luxembourg. 

Virtual country visit to Luxembourg in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

12 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Luxembourg 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in May and June 2020 with: 

  Audio-visual media regulator (ALIA) 
  Commission for Access to Documents 
  Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (COPRECO) 
  Consultative Commission of Human Rights 
  Ethics Committee 
  Group of Luxembourgish Magistrates 
  Luxembourg Association of Professional Journalists  
  Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Press Council 
  Prosecution Service 
  StopCorrupt 
  Supreme Court of Justice 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

13