COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Luxembourg Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
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, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 718 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report    Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Luxembourg Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report    The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  justice  system  of  Luxembourg  continues  to  operate  with  a  high  level  of  perceived 
judicial  independence  and  an  overall  good  level  of  efficiency.  A  constitutional  revision 
procedure  aimed  at  further  strengthening  judicial  independence  is  advancing,  and  the  latest 
draft  includes  the  creation  of  a  council  for  the  judiciary  and  a  clear  reference  to  the 
independence of the judiciary and the prosecution service. This would lead to removing the 
power of the Minister of Justice to give instructions to prosecutors in individual cases. The 
COVID-19  pandemic  has  illustrated  that  digitalisation  of  justice  remains  to  be  further 
developed in order to ensure the resilience of the justice system, as well as the modernisation 
of  justice,  in  general,  in  the  longer  term.  Concrete  proposals  for  amendments  are  being 
prepared to improve the legal aid system. 

The Government is currently assessing the need to strengthen anti-corruption rules, its main 
focus  being  on  corruption  prevention.  A  code  of  conduct  for  members  of  the  Parliament 
partially regulates lobbying activities but shortcomings remain as to the overall consistency 
and  implementation.  Room  for  improvement  remains  with  regard  to  revolving  doors,  as 
specific provisions exist only for members of the Government. This has also been underlined 
by the Ethics Committee which is an external monitoring body. The political party financing 
regulation  has  been  revised 
to  protect 
whistleblowers  remains  to  be  introduced,  but  specific  reporting  channels  exist  within  the 
Grand Ducal Police. In the framework of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Grand Ducal Police 
addressed a reminder of the applicable ethical principles to all law enforcement officials after 
identifying potential corruption risks during the pandemic. 

transparency.  Legislation 

to  ensure  more 

Luxembourg  has  strengthened  further  regulatory  safeguards  for  the  independence  and 
effectiveness  of  the  media  regulator  and  increased  its  resources.  These  should  allow  to 
alleviate  concerns  raised  in  last  year’s  report  regarding  its  effectiveness.  Furthermore,  a 
reform of the press aid scheme, to make it technologically neutral and extend to online news 
media, is ongoing but at this stage it is unclear whether it will include freelance journalists as 
well. The framework for the protection of journalists remains robust. In order to alleviate the 
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the media, the authorities established a temporary aid 
scheme  for  publishers  and  journalists.  Concerns  remain  about  the  lengthy  procedures  for 
access to official documents. 

Parliament  proposed  two  new  constitutional  revisions  notably  introducing  direct  access  of 
citizens to the Constitutional Court and to streamline provisions related to the State, the Head 
of  State  and  the  Government.  Both  are  currently  debated  at  Parliament  while  consultations 
are  ongoing.  Luxembourg  has  relied  mostly  on  ordinary  legislative  procedures  to  enact 
measures  for  addressing  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  but  concerns  have  been  raised  that  the 
opportunities  for  involvement  of  stakeholders  are  limited.  The  “House  of  Human  rights” 
project,  aiming  at  fostering  synergies  and  bringing  together  institutions  protecting 
fundamental rights, was finalised. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on 
the work of NGOs, the civic space in Luxembourg remains open, and the Government made 
grants available to support NGOs during this period. 

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.  The  administrative  branch  is 
composed of an Administrative First-instance Court and an Administrative Court of Appeal. 
The Constitutional Court is part of the judiciary and 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 executive. For posts  at  the Supreme Court  and 
the Administrative Court of Appeal, 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. 
Each Bar Association has an Assembly1, a Bar Council2, a President of the Bar3 and for the 
whole  profession,  a  Disciplinary  and  Administrative  Council4.  Luxembourg  participates  in 
the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. 

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  independence  of  the  judiciary  remains  high.  Among  the 
population, 77% consider the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very 
good’, as well as 69% of businesses5. The level of perceived judicial independence remains 
consistently  high  since  2016  and  has  steadily  increased  for  the  general  public,  but  it  has 
gradually decreased for companies during the last five years6. 

The  revision  procedure  of  the  Constitution  aiming  at  establishing  a  council  for  the 
judiciary  is  advancing.  Between  2009  and  2019,  a  new  draft  Constitution  was  debated  in 
Luxembourg7. This  project  was  abandoned in  2020 and has been  replaced by  a proposal  to 
make several targeted revisions of different parts of the Constitution. A revision of Chapter 
VI of the Constitution on Justice has been proposed with the goal of establishing a council for 
the judiciary and, more generally, to strengthen judicial independence8. The latest draft text 
of  the  Constitution  outlines  the  main  powers  of  the  council  for  the  judiciary,  namely  the 
selection  of  magistrates  before  their  appointment  by  the  Grand  Duke  and  conducting 
disciplinary  proceedings  against  magistrates.  The  specific  conditions  under  which  these 
powers will be exercised, as well as the composition, organisation and the other competencies 
of  the  council,  are  to  be  determined  by  law9.  The  current  draft  legislation  envisages  a 

1   Art. 12-15 of the Law on the profession of a lawyer, 10 August 1991. 
2   Art. 16-19 of the Law on the profession of a lawyer, 10 August 1991. 
3   Art 20-23 of the Law on the profession of a lawyer, 10 August 1991. 
4   Art 24-25 of the Law on the profession of a lawyer, 10 August 1991. 
5   Figures 44 and 46, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 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%). 

6   2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
7   Project No. 6030 - a new draft Constitution. 
8   Project No. 7575 – revision of Chapter VI (on Justice) of the Constitution. 
9   Art. 90, text of Project No. 7575. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
composition of nine members: three ex officio members10, three judges elected by their peers, 
a  lawyer11  and  two  representatives  of  civil  society  and  academia  designated  by  the 
Parliament12.  The  authorities  are  conducting  consultations  on  further  amendments  to  the 
draft,  in  particular  to  align  the  provisions  on  the  composition  of  the  future  council  with 
relevant Council of Europe standards, which provide that at least half of the members of the 
future council are judges (magistrates) elected by their peers13.  

The revision of the Constitution, removing the power of the Minister of Justice to give 
instructions  to  prosecutors  in  individual  cases,  is  progressing.  Prosecution  is  formally 
exercised under the authority of the Minister of Justice, who has the competence to instruct 
the prosecution service to prosecute an individual case, but may not order the prosecution to 
refrain  from  prosecution14.  The  legal  safeguards  surrounding  this  power  combined  with  the 
fact that the prosecution service is in practice recognised as independent, appear to mitigate 
the  risk  to  the  autonomy  of  the  prosecution  service15.  Given  that  the  most  recent  draft 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  introduce16  the  independence  of  the  prosecution  service  in 
the text17, stakeholders  consider that this would make the instruction power of the Minister 
unconstitutional18. It is also to be noted that the Minister of Justice has not given instructions 
in an individual case for more than 20 years19. Under the draft amendments, the Minister of 
Justice  would  still  have  a  certain  degree  of  authority  over  the  prosecution  service,  giving 
direction  to  criminal  policies.  On  23  March  2021,  the  Council  of  State  gave  a  positive 
opinion20  on  the  reintroduced  independence  of  the  prosecution.  However,  the  Council 
expressed its preference for the previous version of the amendments, which did not allow the 
Minister  to  give  guidance  to  the  prosecution21.  The  revision  is  currently  at  the  level  of  the 
Parliament, subject to further discussions and possible new amendments.  

10   The  President  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  President  of  the  Administrative  Court  of  Appeal,  the  State 

Prosecutor General. 

11   Designated by the two Bar Associations. 
12   Project No. 7323 – Draft law on the organisation of the Council for the judiciary. 
13   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras. 26-27. 

See also Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2020)035), para. 44. 

14   Figure  55,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  -  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.  
15   See 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Luxembourg, p. 3  - The legal 
safeguards in place, combined with the current practice, appear to mitigate the risk to the autonomy of the 
prosecution service. 

16   The  already  abandoned  Project  No.  6030  for  a  new  draft  Constitution  included  the  independence  of  the 
prosecution  service.  The  new  Project  No.  7575  for  revision  of  the  Constitution  from  May  2020  did  not 
include the independence of the prosecution service. 

17   Project No. 7575 – new amendments from 23 February 2021. 
18   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Luxembourg.  (e.g.  Groupement  des  magistrats 
luxembourgeois;  Prosecution  service).  The  power  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  is  based  on  Art.  19  of  the 
Criminal Procedure Code. 

19   Information received by the Luxembourgish authorities. 
20   The Council of State criticised the amendments for not explicitly ensuring the functional independence and 
for  omitting  to  specify  that  the  directions  given  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  on  criminal  policies  should  be 
“general”. Opinion No. CE 60.217, on Project No.7575. 

21   Project No. 6030 - a draft new Constitution. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
Quality  

The  COVID-19  pandemic  uncovered  shortcomings  in  the  field  of  digitalisation  of 
justice.  In  June  2020,  at  the  beginning  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  temporary  legislation 
was  adopted  to  allow  the  use  of  already  existing  digital  communication  solutions,  such  as 
email,  mainly  for  non-sensitive  information22.  The  goal  of  this  temporary  legislation  is  to 
limit  direct  physical  contact  between  judges,  court  staff  and  court  users23.  Outside  of  the 
temporary  COVID-19  pandemic  related  measures,  the  “paperless  justice”  project,  that 
encompasses  13  sub-projects,  aims  to  address  present  shortcomings  by  providing  further 
information  on  the  justice  system  to  the  public  through  the  establishment  a  portal  where 
citizens  can  connect  with  lawyers,  judges  and  notaries,  and  through  increasing  the  online 
publication  rate  of  court  judgments.  However,  the  concrete  results  of  the  project  are  yet  to 
materialise.  Stakeholders  have  raised  concerns  that  the  temporary  legal  provisions  and  the 
current  state  of  the  “paperless  justice”  did  not  allow  for  working  remotely  and  that 
videoconference  hearings  have  not  yet  been  organised24.  They  described  the  email 
communication system in the justice system as a welcome new tool, but pointed out that most 
of the communication between courts and lawyers is still conducted through fax. Moreover, 
they stressed the limited scope of available online tools25. The “paperless justice” project is 
envisaged to be completed and operational by 2026. 

Concrete proposals for reforming the legal aid system are being prepared. The legal aid 
framework continues only to provide 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 threshold26. The first pre-draft of the new legislation has been prepared by 
the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  consultations  are  taking  place  before  its  submission  to  the 
Parliament27.  According  to  the  authorities,  the  reform  would  aim  to  simplify  the 
administrative  procedures  and  to  offer  partial  legal  aid,  therefore  making  justice  more 
accessible to citizens. 

Efficiency 

Civil justice continues to perform efficiently and steps were taken to mitigate the impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic while criminal and administative justice are less efficient. A 
temporary backlog of cases was caused by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. To reduce 
the backlog, the judiciary holidays were shortened. For civil matters, most cases continued in 
written procedures28. As a result, the backlogs no  longer exist29. This  is  also  proven by the 

22   See two laws of 20 June 2020 - http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2020/06/20/a542/consolide/20201222; 

http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2020/06/20/a523/consolide/20201125  

23   Input of Luxembourg for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p.5. 
24   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Luxembourg.  (e.g.  Groupement  des  Magistrats 

Luxembourgeois; Supreme Court). 

25   Only two available online tools that they could  use from their homes are a system that shows when a case 
was filed and a public database for access to anonymised decisions that is available for everyone, including 
citizens. 

26   Figure 23, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
27   Information received in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg (e.g. Ministry of Justice). 
28   Information received in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg (e.g. Ministry of Justice). 
29   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Luxembourg  (Groupement  des  magistrats 

luxembourgeois) 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
latest data on the efficiency of civil justice, which continues to be consistently high, although 
the length of proceedings is significantly longer at second and third instances30. The number 
of  pending  civil  cases  is  low,31  and  a  consistent  clearance  rate  of  around  100%  shows  that 
civil justice deals with its caseload effectively32. However, backlogs in criminal matters were 
more  prominent  as  most  hearings  were  suspended  between  March  and  May  2020.  Finally, 
there is still no available data as regards the length of court proceedings and the number of 
pending cases in administrative justice33. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The institutional framework to prevent and fight corruption has not changed since last year’s 
report. Luxembourg has no specific anti-corruption strategy, nor an anti-corruption agency; it 
has  a  legal  and  institutional  anti-corruption  framework  broadly  in  place.  The  Ministry  of 
Justice  is  the  main  authority  in  charge  of  overall  anti-corruption  matters,  including  policy 
coordination. Within the Ministry of Justice, an intergovernmental committee, the Corruption 
Prevention  Committee  (COPRECO),  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 Prosecution service has specific 
competences  to  investigate  criminal  cases  of  economic  and  financial  nature,  including 
corruption cases.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the public sector remains low.  In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions  Index by Transparency 
International,  Luxembourg  scores  80/100  and  ranks  4th  in  the  European  Union  and  9th 
globally34. This perception has deteriorated35 over the past five years36. 

Inter-institutional  cooperation  is  working  well  between  all  authorities  involved, 
although  there  are  challenges  as  regards  human  resources  in  the  Prosecution  service. 
The Prosecution service numbers 36 magistrates and among them one third are employed in 
the area of the fight against economic, financial and corruption offences. Additional resources 
have been requested by the Prosecution service but no significant increase has been granted 
so far. The latest available annual report37 also highlights the lack of candidates to fill vacant 
positions and this trend has been confirmed this year, particularly in the Prosecution service’s 

30   2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
31   Figure 14, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
32   Figure 11, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
33   Figures 5, 8, 9, 13 and 15, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
34   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  p.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

35   In 2015 the score was 85, while in 2020, the score was 80. The Score significantly increases/decreases when 
it changes more five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points); is relatively stable (changes 
from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

36   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

37   Luxembourg  Government  (2020),  Jurisdictional  and  prosecutorial  statistics  2019  (Statistiques  des 

jurisdictions et des parquets Année 2019). 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
Economic  and  Financial  section38.  Nevertheless,  the  authorities  reported  that  for  complex 
investigations,  resources  can  be  rapidly  adapted  to  respond  to  specific  needs  ensuring  the 
effectiveness  of  the Prosecution service39. The most relevant  development  since last  year is 
the improvement of the IT infrastructure that allows prosecutors to work and have full access 
to files remotely40. No shortcomings are reported for what concerns the legal framework to 
fight  financial  crimes  and  the  cooperation  with  the  Financial  Intelligence  Unit  is  working 
well41.  

The  Government  is  currently  assessing  the  need  to  strengthen  the  rules  on  the  fight 
against corruption. The main focus of this exercise is on prevention. However, COPRECO 
has not recently met, neither in person nor online, and has not received any written feedback 
on  possible  shortcomings  in  the  anti-corruption  legislation  by  any  ministry42.  As  regards 
specific anti-corruption training, all new civil servants must attend a dedicated module as part 
of  their  mandatory  training.  During  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  this  has  been  conducted 
online43. 

Room  for  improvement  remains  as  regards  the  regulation  of  conflicts  of  interest  and 
revolving  doors.  There  are  four  codes  of  ethics  in  force44  and  their  monitoring  is  ensured 
internally by the respective institutions, except for the code of conduct for the members of the 
Government, which is monitored by an external body, the Ethics Committee. Only this latter 
code  includes  provisions  on  revolving  doors  for  Ministers45,  which  was  identified  as  a 
shortcoming in last year’s Rule of Law Report. In 2020, the Ethics Committee examined two 
new cases related to the same high ranking official. This allowed the Committee to provide 
an opinion on the applicable legislative framework. The Committee argued that while article 
12  of  the  code  of  ethics  which  prohibits  former  members  of  the  Government  to  engage  in 
activities that will bring them into contact  with their former administration is  easy to  apply 
and to monitor, the application of article 11, which forbids former ministers to use or divulge 
information  that  is  not  publically  accessible,  is  difficult  to  apply46.  In  this  regard,  the 
Committee has submitted to the Prime Minister a recommendation to improve the rules47.  

Shortcomings  remain  in  the  area  of  lobbying  and  asset  declarations.  The  lack  of 
consistency  and  oversight  of  the  obligation  of  members  of  the  Parliament  to  disclose  their 
assets and gifts received remain the main issues, as also pointed out by the Group of States 
against  Corruption  of  the  Council  of  Europe  (GRECO)48.  Currently,  there  is  no 

38   Contribution received by the Prosecution Service in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg.  
39   See previous reference.  
40   See previous reference. 
41   See previous reference Annual statistics from the Financial Intelligence Unit do not specify the number of 
foreign  bribery  cases.  The  latest  available  annual  report  is  from  2019.  General  Prosecutor  Office  (2020), 
Annual Report 2019. 

42   Information received by COPRECO in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg.  
43   See previous reference. 
44   One  for  the  members  of  the  Parliament,  one  for  the  members  of  the  Government,  one  for  the  Council  of 

State and one for the Grand Ducal Police. 

45   Art. 11 and Art. 12 of the Government Code of Ethics. 
46   According  to  Art.  11  former  Ministers  are  forbid  to  use  or  divulge  information  which  are  not  publicly 
accessible. This provision has been identified as hard to apply as it is very difficult to identify information 
which became publicly available from the one which is still confidential.  

47   Ethics Committee (2020), Opinion of the Ethics Committee (Avis du comité d'éthique), (22.04.2020). 
48   GRECO(2020), Fourth Evaluation Round– Second Interim compliance report: Luxembourg. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
comprehensive regulation on lobbying activities. Members of the Parliament apply their own 
code of conduct, which regulates in-house meetings but not informal contacts49. At the same 
time,  there  are  no  lobbying  rules  in  force  for  members  of  the  Government  and  senior 
advisers50. 

The political party financing regulation has been revised. On 15 December 2020, the law 
on  political  party  financing  introduced  an  obligation  for  all  candidates  for  national  and 
European  elections  to  declare  all  donations  exceeding  EUR  25051.  The  law  also  states  that 
false declarations constitute a criminal offence pursuant to the Criminal Code52. It should be 
also  noted  that  all  political  parties  must  submit  their  income  and  expenditure  declarations, 
which are then forwarded to the Court of Auditors for verification53.  

legal 
increased  application  of  the  transparency  and  open  administration 
The 
framework brought several improvements, although shortcomings as regards access to 
information  remain.  In  the  first  years  of  application  of  the  law  of  14  September  2018  on 
access to documents54, civil society has drawn attention to its narrow scope and the possibly 
negative impact on the effective fight against corruption55. While the law grants the right to 
request  access  to  documents,  it  does  not  provide  for  a  general  right  to  request  information. 
Hence,  the  requesting  party  might  not  obtain  any  information  unless  they  are  aware  of  the 
existence of a specific document56. The Commission on the access to documents (CAD) is an 
independent administrative body with an advisory role that lacks any power of oversight. The 
CAD  is  composed  of  five  members57  and  can  issue  opinions  in  two  cases:  firstly,  when 
requested by an administration seeking an opinion; and secondly, when considering an appeal 
in  case  a  request  for  access  to  documents  has  been  refused.  A  case  can  be  filed  through  a 
dedicated website or in writing and filing a case to the CAD does not constitute a prerequisite 
to  refer  the  case  to  the  Administrative  Court.  Compared  to  2019,  requests  to  the  CAD 
decreased in  202058. Among all opinions delivered by the  CAD, three cases are pending in 
the Administrative Court with regards to opinions delivered in 2019 and one case is pending 
in  the  Court  in  relation  to  an  opinion  delivered  in  202059.  The  absence  of  any  reporting 
obligation by public entities to the CAD has been identified as a shortcoming60.  

49   Parliament Official website, Parliament Internal Regulation, 2019 version, p. 61, Article 5.  
50   GRECO (2020), Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance report. 
51   Political Party Finance Law, Art. 9 para. 4. 
52   Political Party Finance Law, Art. 17. 
53   Political Party Finance Law, Art. 12.  
54   Law of 14 September 2018 on a transparent and open administration (Loi du 14 septembre 2018 relative à 

une administration transparente et ouverte). 

55   Information received in the context of the Country visit to Luxembourg.  
56   Article 1 of the Law of 14 September 2018 states « Les personnes physiques et les personnes morales ont un 

droit d’accès aux documents ».  

57   Members  are  a  magistrate  who  is  also  appointed  as  chair,  a  representative  of  the  Prime  Minister,  a 
representative  of  the  National  Commission  for  Data  Protection,  a  representative  of  the  syndicate  of 
Luxembourg’s  cities  and  municipalities  Syvicol,  a  representative  of  the  Information  and  Press  Service 
(Service information et presse – SIP). 

58   Luxembourg  Government  (2021),  Activity  Report  2020  of  the  Commission  for  Access  to  Documents 

(Rapport d'activité 2020 de la Commission d’accès aux documents). 

59   Information received from the Commission on the access to documents in the context of the country visit to 

Luxembourg. 

60   Information received in the context of the country visit (e.g. Commission d’accès aux documents). 

7 

 
 
 
                                                           
Whistleblower protection legislation currently in place is still limited to specific sectors 
such  as  private  and  public  labour  law.  Sectoral  provisions  include  those  in  the  Grand 
Ducal  Police’s  code  of  conduct,  which  provides  the  possibility  for  police  officers  to 
anonymously contact the legal department to report acts that may constitute an infringement 
in the course of duty61. The preparation of the new framework for whistleblowers protection 
is currently ongoing with the aim of allowing for a more general and effective protection of 
whistleblowers62.  

No specific measures were reported to address corruption risks related to the COVID-
19 pandemic. The Grand Ducal Police issued a reminder to all law enforcement officials of 
the  applicable  ethical  principles  after  identifying  potential  corruption  risks  during  the 
pandemic63.  Furthermore,  police  human  resources  were  reassigned  to  support  national 
authorities in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic64. Training for newly recruited public 
officials  and  police  officers  migrated  online,  something  that  has  shown  to  be  more  time 
efficient and cost effective65. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

The  legal  framework  concerning  media  freedom66  and  pluralism  is  based  on  a  set  of 
constitutional  and  legislative  safeguards.  Freedom  of  expression  is  explicitly  recognised  in 
the  Constitution.  The  Law  on  Freedom  of  Expression  in  Media  ensures  protection  for 
journalists.  The  Law  on  Electronic  Media  guarantees  the  financial  and  administrative 
independence of the audiovisual media regulator.  

Regulatory  safeguards  for  the  independence  and  effectiveness  of  the  media  regulator 
and its resources were strengthened. The law of 26 February 2021 amended the 1991 Law 
on Electronic Media67, as well as the 2013 law establishing the audiovisual media regulator68, 
the Autorité Luxembourgoise Indépendente de l’Audiovisuel (ALIA), to transpose the revised 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). In particular, the law has entrusted ALIA 
with new regulatory functions, such as establishing mechanisms to assess the measures taken 
by video-sharing platforms and encouraging the development of media literacy. The law now 
provides  explicitly  that  ALIA  shall  carry  out  its  tasks  impartially,  independently  and 
transparently.  Moreover,  the  law  allows  ALIA  to  request  from  media  service  providers  the 
information necessary for the exercise of its functions, as well as to impose sanctions for the 
non-respect of its decisions. The Parliament has increased the budget allocation to ALIA by 
70% compared to 2020. In addition, four new positions have been granted to fulfil the new 

61   Grand Ducale Police (2019), Code of Ethics of the Police (Code de déontologie de la police). According to 
the  information  received  during  the  country  visit,  in  2020 there  was  only  one  request  through  the  internal 
reporting channel.  

62   Information received from COPRECO in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg. 
63   Input from Luxembourg for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 
64   Information received by the Police Grand Ducal in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg.  
65   Information received by the Police Grand Ducal in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg. 
66   Despite  increase  in  overall  score,  Luxembourg  has  moved  down  3  positions  in  the  2021  World  Press 
Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), where it now appears in the 20th place vs 17th 
in  2020.  Luxembourg  ranks  11th  among  the  27  EU  Member  States.  The  drop  in  position  could  be  due  to 
overall increase of the score in other countries. 

67   Law on Electronic Media.  
68   For more information see http://data.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rect/2013/11/14/n1/jo 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
tasks assigned to the regulator. ALIA also plays a role in supervising the audiovisual sector’s 
political  independence.  ALIA  notes  in  a  report  that  television  broadcasts  produced  by 
municipalities  on  a  local  level  could  potentially  be  used  to  push  a  political  agenda  as  the 
editorial  responsibility  lies  within  the  municipality  itself69.  There  is  a  highly  concentrated 
media landscape in Luxembourg coupled with a small market size70. 

The  Government  has  addressed  concerns  raised  by  stakeholders  related  to  its 
communication  and  transparency  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Two  major 
organisations defending press freedom71 criticised the Government's communication and the 
lack  of  transparency  towards  journalists,  especially  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  This 
concerned  notably  the  limited  access  to  information  arising  from  the  restricted  physical 
presence  of  journalists  during  press  conferences.  Following  these  criticisms,  after  some 
weeks physical press conferences were reinstated72.  

The  authorities  took  some  steps  to  address  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on 
the  media.  To  alleviate  the  economic  impact  on  media,  the  authorities  established  a 
temporary aid scheme for media outlets and journalists73. Media outlets could apply for aid 
that  would  amount  to  an  annual  EUR  5000  per  journalist  employed  by  them.  The  scheme 
concerned only professional journalists employed by eligible publishers, excluding freelance 
journalists  who  had  to  apply  for  support  from  a  different  aid  scheme  designed  for 
independent professionals.  

Legislative  work  progressed  on  the  reform  of  the  press  aid  scheme.  Presented  by  the 
Government in July 2020, the future regime is aimed to be technologically neutral and apply 
equally to print and online news media. While welcoming the reform, stakeholders expressed 
some concerns about  the limited public consultation  process,  the  envisaged relatively small 
amount  of  support  per  journalist  as  well  as  the  lack  of  precision  on  how  online  media  and 
new or hybrid profiles in the media field (e.g. web content managers, fact-checkers) will be 
treated.  The  reform  of  the  press  aid  scheme  is  of  a  structural  nature  and  is  still  under 
discussion.  Thus  it  is  not  possible  to  know  at  this  stage  whether  it  will  include  freelance 
journalists as well.  

Access  by  journalists  to  official  documents  continues  to  raise  concerns74.  Stakeholders 
pointed  out  particularly  the  negative  effects  of  the  Law  of  14  September  2018  on  a 
Transparent  and  Open  Administration  on  the  journalistic  profession,  due  to  the  lengthy 
procedures for obtaining documents. Stakeholders have suggested that a fast-track procedure 

69   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor Report for Luxembourg, p. 14. 
70   These two factors together could potentially have negative effects on the media pluralism landscape. See the 
2021 Media Pluralism Monitoring Report,  which highlights that one Group dominates the audiovisual and 
online  sectors,  and  two  Groups  -  the  printed  press.  It  also  points  to  large  consumption  of  foreign  TV 
channels. See 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor Report for Luxembourg, pp 11 and 12. 

71   Association  luxembourgeoise  des  journalistes  professionnels  and  Conseil  national  de  la  presse  – 

contribution from ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 235-236. 

72   Press  conferences  went  fully  digital  18  March  2020  and  stayed  like  this  until  the  second  week  of  May. 

Luxembourg Government (2020), New practical arrangements for government press conferences. 
73   Luxembourg Government, Financial aid for publishers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
74   2020 Rule of Law Report country chapter on the rule of law situation in Luxembourg, page 8. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
for journalists should be put in place75. In this context, journalists recalled that Luxembourg 
is  still one of the Member States  not  to  guarantee a fast-track access  to  information  for the 
press that would be different from the right to access to information for citizens, and called on 
the  Government  to  introduce  such  a  procedure.  Moreover,  stakeholders76  have  raised 
concerns about the selective approach in disclosing information on the part of the authorities. 
The  Commission  consultative  des  Droits  de  l’Homme  (CCDH)  similarly  appealed  to  the 
Government to guarantee journalists access to information in all circumstances. Moreover, as 
recalled  during  stakeholder  consultation  of  the  aforementioned  reform  of  the  press  aid 
scheme77,  this  access  to  information  was  included  in  the  Government’s  programme 
declaration for 2018-202378. 

The framework for the protection of journalists remains robust. Since the 2020 Rule of 
Law Report, the Commission has not received any indications concerning a weakening of the 
framework for the protection of journalists. In this regard, no alerts concerning Luxembourg 
have been created in the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism 
and  safety  of  journalists79  since  2015.  While  criminal  defamation  prosecutions  against  the 
media are still scarce, a  concern remains amongst  professionals  and NGOs that these  cases 
may be used as a means to intimidate media and journalists, as a new case was brought before 
the courts this year80.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Luxembourg  is  a  unicameral81  parliamentary  democracy,  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.  

Two new constitutional revisions were proposed  to give direct access of citizens to the 
Constitutional Court and to streamline the old provisions related to the State, the Head 
of State and the Government. The first constitutional revision tabled in June 202082 aims to 
give  citizens  direct  access  to  the  Constitutional  Court  for  regulatory  measures  taken  by  the 
Government in case of state of emergency83. The aim of the revision is to protect fundamental 

75   In  April  2021,  the  Luxembourg  Association  of  Professional  Journalists  (ALJP)  started  a  campaign  for  an 
additional  article  to  the  press  law  that  would  oblige  the  authorities  to  provide  information  to  the  media 
within a specific timeframe. Journalists and  their organisations  have been advocating  for a solid access to 
information and transparency since the 2004 Freedom of Expression Act. Currently, access to information is 
covered by the 2018 law on "open and transparent administration", which was designed for any citizen and 
does  not  provide  a  statutory  right  to  information  for  journalists  specifically.  See  also  contribution  from 
ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 235.  

76   See Reporters Without Borders, 2020 World Press Freedom Index. 
77   Projet de loi relatif à un régime d'aides en faveur du journalisme professionnel et abrogeant la loi modifiée 
du  3  août  1998  sur  la  promotion  de  la  presse  écrite  –  Opinion  of  the  “l'Association  luxembourgeoise  des 
journalistes professionnels”. 

78   Luxembourg Government (2018), Government’s programme declaration for 2018-2023, p. 24. 
79   Council of Europe: Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists– Luxembourg. 
80   Information received in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg (e.g. ALJP). 
81   The parliament is composed of the Chamber of Deputies.  
82   Project No. 7620 – Draft revision of Art. 32 of the Constitution. 
83   Art. 32(4) of the Constitution. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
rights. On 9 March 2021, the Council of State gave its opinion on this revision84 expressing 
that it sees no need for such reform considering that the regulatory measures adopted in the 
state of emergency do not escape the review of legality carried out by any judge85. Following 
this  opinion,  the  Parliament  has  to  discuss  and  decide  how  to  proceed,  based  on  the 
comments  and  assessment  received.86  The  second  constitutional  revision  tabled  on  17 
November 202087 aims at amending the organisation of the State88, the Head of State89, the 
constitutional  monarchy,  the  Government90,  relations  between  the  State  and  religious 
communities91,  and  municipalities92.  The  goal  of  this  revision  is  to  modernise  the 
Constitution  through  streamlining  the  old  provisions  related  to  the  State,  the  Head  of  State 
and the Government. Moreover, it would clarify that the role of the Grand Duke is symbolic 
and formal, while the political responsibility for the acts of the Grand Duke is ensured by the 
members of the Government. On 9 March 2021, the Council of State gave a positive opinion 
on this revision93 noting that many of the provisions were already approved by the Council 
under the abandoned draft Constitution94. 

stakeholders’ 
The  decision-making  process  appears 
recommendations  are  often  not  followed.  Concerns  have  been  raised  as  regards  the 
regularity  and  extent  of  consultation  of  stakeholders  in  the  decision-making  process. 
Throughout the ordinary legislative procedure, a consultative opinion of the Council of State 

inclusive  but 

to  be 

84   Opinion No. CE 60.288 on Project No. 7620. 
85   See Art.32(4), Art. 95 and Art. 95ter of the Constitution - the specific mission of the Constitutional Court is 
to  control  the  constitutionality  of  laws  while  the  jurisdictional  control  of  regulatory  acts  fall,  for  direct 
recourse, to the administrative judge and, for incidental control, to any judge. 

86   The Parliament can propose additional amendments to align the text with the opinion of the Council of State; 

can decide to pursue the reform regardless of the opinion; can decide to not further pursue the reform. 

87   Project No. 7700 - Revision of Chapters I, III, V, VII, IX, X, XI and XII of the Constitution. 
88   E.g.  Chapter  I  of  the  draft  text  brings  together  various  provisions  which  are  currently  dispersed  in  other 
places  of  the  constitutional  text.  Moreover,  it  explicitly  enshrines  the  notion  of  the  rule  of  law  in  the 
Constitution. 

89   E.g.  Chapter  III  of  the  draft  text  brings  together  all  the  provisions  relating  to  the  Grand  Duke,  with  the 
exception of those relating to Parliament. Moreover, the formal powers that the new text gives to the Head of 
State can only be exercised with the signature of the competent minister. 

90   E.g. Chapter V of the draft text confirms the Government’s institutional place in a parliamentary democracy. 
This is in accordance with the monist theory in parliamentary law, according to which the Government only 
exists  under  the  sole  condition  of  being  supported  by  a  majority  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  even  if  the 
appointment of members of the Government is carried out by grand-ducal decree. 

91   E.g. Chapter VII of the draft text introduces three guiding principles for the relations between the State and 
the  Church  and  religious  communities:  churches  and  religious  communities  are  separated  from  the  State; 
relations between the churches and the religious communities and the State will be regulated by law; the law 
can  also  trace  the  outlines  of  the  conventions  to  be  concluded  between  the  State  and  the  churches  and 
religious communities. 

92   E.g. Chapter IX of the draft text determines the constitutional regime under which the municipalities operate. 
It  concerns  topics  such  as  finances  of  the  municipalities,  regulatory  power  and  the  creation  of  municipal 
public enterprises. 

93   Opinion No. CE 60.469 on Project No. 7700. 
94   With the  decision to  not further pursue the previous constitutional  reform  that ran  from 2009 to 2019, the 
anchoring of the Ombudsman institution at the constitutional level is not currently discussed. As explained 
before, the present approach is to introduce targeted revisions on specific topics, in this context the reform as 
regards  the  Ombudsman  could  be  reintroduced.  On  29  June  2021,  a  new  revision  of  the  Constitution  was 
tabled in Parliament. It focuses on the role of the Parliament and aims at strengthening its role. The text will 
now be sent for the opinion of the Council of State and will be open for public consultation. See Project No. 
7777 - Proposition for revision of Chapters IV and Vbis of the Constitution.  

11 

 
 
 
                                                           
is  mandatory  for  every  proposed  legislation.  In  addition,  there  are  five  professional 
chambers95,  which  are  consulted  for  an  opinion  in  their  respective  field  of  expertise.  Their 
opinions  are  an  integral  part  of  the  legislative  proposal  and  are  taken  into  account  when 
preparing  amendments  to  the  draft  legislation96.  However,  while  it  is  possible  for  other 
stakeholders97  to  submit  opinions,  their  recommendations  are  not  regularly  followed98.  As 
regards  the  regulatory  procedure,  the  opinion  of  the  Council  of  State  is  also  mandatory, 
except  for  regulatory  measures  taken  during  a  state  of  emergency,  where  requesting  such 
opinion is facultative99. The opinion of the professional chambers must also be requested for 
any  draft  regulatory  measure  in  their  respective  field  of  expertise.  Furthermore,  failure  to 
consult the competent professional chambers on a draft regulation entails legal sanctions100. 
As to the role of the Consultative Commission for Human Rights (CCDH) in the regulatory 
process, although there is no obligation for the Government to reply or follow the CCDH’s 
recommendations,  certain  stakeholders reported that  the Government  rarely takes them into 
account,  in  particular  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic101.  Furthermore,  the  CCDH 
consultation  in  the  legislative  process  by  a  parliamentary  committee  remains  rare  as  well. 
Regarding  the  involvement  of  other  human  rights  bodies  (e.g.  the  Ombudsman),  the 
Government occasionally conducts consultations on a bilateral basis or within the framework 
of the inter-ministerial human rights Committee. However, their input and recommendations 
are rarely taken into account102. 

Ordinary legislative procedures are currently used to enact measures to respond to the 
COVID-19 pandemic. Between 18 March 2020 and 24 June 2020, Luxembourg relied on a 
state  of  emergency  for  addressing  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  This  constitutional  regime103 
allowed  the  Government  to  adopt  adequate,  necessary  and  proportionate  measures  in  all 
matters  for  a  limited  amount  of  time.  Subsequently,  the  Parliament  has  been  using  the 
ordinary legislative procedure, accompanied with shorter deadlines, to address the challenges 
related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In spite of the fact that the amendments are introduced in 
an accelerated manner, the Parliament seeks to carry out stakeholder consultations. However, 
stakeholders  have  concerns  about  the  inclusiveness  of  the  consultation  process,  especially 

95   Chambre des salariés; Chambre des fonctionnaires et employés publics; Chambre d'agriculture; Chambre 

de commerce; Chambre des métiers. 

96   The  requests  for  such  opinions  are  mandatory  for  the  Parliament,  but  obtaining  their  opinion  is  not. 
Moreover,  the  omission  to  consult  these  organisations  is  not  a  condition  for  legality  of  the  legislation.  – 
Information received in the context of the country visit to Luxembourg. 

97   E.g.  CCDH;  Ombudsman;  Non-governmental  Organisations  (Civil  Society  Organisations);  Other 

professional organisations, outside of the professional chambers that are already consulted. 

98   The Parliament can receive contributions from stakeholders and when they are related to a specific case, they 
will be  forwarded to the relevant committees.  – Information received in the context of the country visit to 
Luxembourg. See also Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. p. 235. 

99   Art.  1(1)  Law  on  the  organisation  of  the  Council  of  State  of  16  June  2017  -  The  Government  decides 
whether an opinion of the Council of State is necessary or not. Also confirmed in the context of the country 
visit to Luxembourg. 

100  Consultation of the professional chambers concerned is therefore a condition of legality for a Grand-Ducal 

regulation or a ministerial regulation. 

101  For  instance,  very  few  of  the  CCDH’'s  recommendations  regarding  COVID-19  laws  have  been  taken  into 
account  (10  opinions  were  issued  in  2020,  4  in  2021  at  the  time  of  the  submission  of  the  contribution).  - 
Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law report. p.235 covering 2020 and 2021.  

102  See previous reference. 
103  Article 32(4) of the Luxembourgish Constitution. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                           
when  legislation  is  being  adopted  very  rapidly104  which  often  limits  consultation  to  the 
Council of State and the professional chambers105.  

The  “House  of  Human  Rights”  was  established.  The  initiative106  to  unite  the  key 
independent authorities fulfilling key roles in safeguarding fundamental rights in one location 
was  finalised  in  2020.  The  House  of  Human  Rights  brings  together  the  CCDH,  the 
Ombudsman for the Rights of the Child, and the Centre for Equal Treatment. The goal of the 
House  of  Human  Rights  is  to  facilitate  citizens’  access  to  the  institutions  protecting 
fundamental  rights  and  to  increase  the  synergies  between  the  different  institutions.  The 
CCDH  is  the  accredited  National  Human  Rights  Institution  of  Luxembourg107.  The 
Ombudsman for the Rights of the Child is specifically tasked with the protection of the rights 
of every person under 18 years of age108. The Centre for Equal Treatment is the equality body 
of Luxembourg109. 

Although  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  had  an  impact  the  work  of  NGOs,  the  civic 
space in Luxembourg remains open110. Since April 2020 fundraising campaigns as well as 
advocacy  and  awareness  activities  had  to  be  cancelled  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic. 
NGOs  reported 
interruption  of  associative  activity  was  accompanied  by 
consequences  at  the  financial  level111.  However,  in  November  2020,  the  Government 
presented various grants projects and the eligibility criteria for obtaining a grant112. 

that 

the 

104  Often within a week after being proposed. 
105  E.g. Draft law on the amended law of July 17, 2020 on measures to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. 
106  Initiative started in 2007-08. 
107  It gives opinions and recommendations on matters related to fundamental rights, either on its own initiative 
or at the request of the Government For more information see 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on 
the rule of law situation in Luxembourg, p. 9. See also https://ganhri.org/membership/ 

108  It  examines  complaints,  makes  recommendations  for  better  protection  and  promotion  of  the  rights  of  the 
information  see 

implementation  of  children’s 

rights.  For  more 

child  and  advises  on 
http://ork.lu/index.php/fr/missionsork  

the 

109  Its purpose is to promote, analyse and monitor equal treatment between all persons without discrimination 
on  the  basis  of  race,  ethnic  origin,  sex,  sexual  orientation,  religion  or  beliefs,  handicap  or  age.  For  more 
information  see  https://equineteurope.org/what-are-equality-bodies/european-directory-of-equality-bodies/ 
and https://cet.lu/missions/  

110  See  2020 Rule of Law Report,  country chapter on the  rule of law situation in Luxembourg, p. 9. See also 
rating  given  by  CIVICUS.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 
repressed and closed. 

111  CLAE (2020), Investigation into the associative difficulties linked to the Covid-19 pandemic in Luxembourg 

(Enquête sur les difficultés associatives liées à la pandémie du Covid-19 au Luxembourg), May 2020.  

112  CLAE (2020), Ministry of Culture:  what financial  support for associations?  (Ministère de la culture : quel 

soutien financier pour les associations?), 26 November 2020. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Activity  Report  2020  of  the  Commission  for  Access  to  Documents  (Rapport  d'activité  2020  de  la 
Commission  d’accès  aux  documents)  (https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/fr/publications/rapport-
activite/minist-etat/cad/rapport-activite-2020-cad.pdf). 

Centre 
2021(https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2021/). 

for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom 

(2021),  Media  pluralism  monitor 

Civicus, 
(https://monitor.civicus.org/country/luzembourg/). 

Monitor 

tracking 

civic 

space 

– 

Luxembourg 

Chamber  of  Deputies,  Chambre  des  Députés 
(https://chd.lu/wps/wcm/connect/public/5abf3456-f398-4259-a831-
20788c0f208c/reglementjuli2019.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&ContentCache=NONE&CACHE=NONE&
CVID=mOb0p1W&CVID=mOb0p1W). 

regulation,  2019  version, 

(2019),Internal 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists– 
Luxembourg. (https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/luxembourg). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2020), Opinion No. 1002 / 2020 on urgent interim opinion 
on the draft new constitution of Bulgaria (CDL-AD(2020)035). 

Council 
State 
etat.public.lu/fr/legislation/reglesdeontologiques.html). 

(2015), 

of 

Internal 

regulation 

(https://conseil-

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020a),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

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

Draft  law  on  the  amended  law  of  July  17,  2020  on  measures  to  combat  the  COVID-19  pandemic. 
http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/projet/pl/20170427 

ENHRI (2020), contribution from ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Ethics Committee (2020), Opinion of the Ethics Committee (Avis du comité d'éthique), (22.04.2020) 
(https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/systeme-politique/gouvernement/rb-code-deontologie/Avis-du-
comite-d-ethique-24042020-.pdf). 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Luxembourg. 

European Commission (2019-2021), The EU Justice Scoreboard. 

Fundamental  Rights  Agency  (2021),  Legal  environment  and  space  of  civil  society  organisations  in 
supporting fundamental rights in Luxembourg. 

Prosecutor 

General 
(https://justice.public.lu/content/dam/justice/fr/publications/rapport-activites-crf/rapport-crf-
2019.pdf). 

(2020), 

Annual 

Report 

Office 

2019, 

Grand  Ducale  Police  (2019),  Code  of  Ethics  of  the  Police  (Code  de  déontologie  de  la  police), 
(https://police.public.lu/fr/publications/2019/code-deontologie-police.html). 

14 

 
 
 
GRECO  (2020a),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  Second  Interim  compliance  report  on  Luxembourg, 
corruption  prevention 
judges  and  prosecutor 
respect  of  members  of  Parliament, 
(https://rm.coe.int/fourth-evaluation-round-corruption-prevention-in-respect-of-members-
of/1680a0424d). 

in 

GRECO  (2020b),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Compliance  report  on  Luxembourg  on  Preventing 
corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law 
enforcement agencies (https://rm.coe.int/fifth-evaluation-round-preventing-corruption-and-promoting-
integrity-i/1680a04279). 

Luxembourg  Government  (2018a),  Code  of  Ethics,  (https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/fr/systeme-
politique/gouvernement/rb-code-deontologie/Arrete-grand-ducal-du-14-novembre-2014-fixant-les-
regles-deontologiques-des-membres-du-Gouvernement-et-leurs-devoirs-et-droits-dans-lexercice-de-
la-fo.pdf). 

Luxembourg  Government 
(https://gouvernement.lu/en/publications/accord-coalition/programme-gouvernemental.html). 

(2018b),  Government’s  programme  declaration 

for  2018-2023 

Luxembourg  Government  (2020a),  Jurisdictional  and  prosecutorial  statistics  2019  (Statistiques  des 
jurisdictions et des parquets Année 2019) (https://justice.public.lu/dam-assets/fr/publications/rapport-
activites-judiciaires/Rapports-juridictions-judiciaires-2019.pdf ). 

Luxembourg  Government  (2020b),  New  practical  arrangements  for  government  press  conferences 
(https://sip.gouvernement.lu/fr/actualites.gouvernement%2Bfr%2Bactualites%2Btoutes_actualites%2
Bcommuniques%2B2020%2B05-mai%2B02-modalites-conferences-presse.html). 

Luxembourg Government (2021), Input from Luxembourg for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Luxembourg Government, Financial aid for publishers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic – 
(https://guichet.public.lu/en/entreprises/sectoriel/medias/indemnite-editeurs-publications-covid.html). 

Opinion No. CE 60.217, on Project No.7575 - http://data.legilux.public.lu/file2/2021-03-23/36  

Opinion No. CE 60.288 on Project No.7620 - http://data.legilux.public.lu/file2/2021-03-09/38 

Opinion No. CE 60.469 on Project No. 7700 - http://data.legilux.public.lu/file2/2021-03-09/32 

Parliament Internal Regulation, 2019 version, p. 61, Article 5, https://chd.lu 

Project No. 6030 - a new draft Constitution - http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/projet/ppc/10000  

Project  No.  7323  –  Draft  law  on  the  organisation  of  the  Council  for  the  judiciary  - 
http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/projet/pl/10455  

Project No. 7575 – revision of Chapter VI (on Justice) of the Constitution, full text of the project  - 
http://data.legilux.public.lu/file2/2021-02-24/23  

Project No. 7575 – revision of Chapter VI (on Justice) of the Constitution, full text of the project, new 
amendments from 23 February 2021 - http://data.legilux.public.lu/file2/2021-02-24/23  

Project  No.  7575  – 
http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/projet/ppc/20130254  

revision  of  Chapter  VI 

(on 

Justice)  of 

the  Constitution 

- 

Project  No. 
http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/projet/ppc/20130257 

–  Draft 

revision 

7620 

of  Art. 

32 

of 

the  Constitution 

- 

Project  No.  7700  -  Revision  of  Chapters  I,  III,  V,  VII,  IX,  X,  XI  and  XII  of  the  Constitution 
http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/projet/ppc/20130258  

Project  No.  7777  -  Proposition  for  revision  of  Chapters  IV  and  Vbis  of  the  Constitution 
http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/projet/ppc/20130260 

Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index. https://rsf.org/en/ranking. 

15 

 
 
 
Transparency International (2021), 2020 Corruption Perception Index. 

16 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Luxembourg 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2021 with: 

  Chambre des Députés (Parliament) 
  Committee for the Prevention of Corruption (COPRECO) 
  Consultative Commission for Human Rights (CCDH) 
  Council of State 
  Ethics Committee 
  Finance & Human Rights 
  Groupement des magistrats Luxembourgeois 
  Luxembourg Association of Journalists (ALJP) 
  Luxembourgish Media Regulator (ALIA) 
  Ministry of Culture 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Interior 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Ministry of State 
  Ombudsman 
  Police Grand Ducal 
  StopCorrupt 
  Supreme Court of Justice 
  The Commission for access to documents 
  The Luxembourg Bar Association 

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

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  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 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
 
 

ILGA-Europe 
International Commission of Jurists 
International Federation for Human Rights 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
International Press Institute 

17 

 
 
 
 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

18