New developments have emerged in the case between ZUG and VDL, including the city's appeal against the publication request for safety documents, which has sparked further discussion.
The quest for who is right between Luxembourg City or the Centre for Urban Justice, ZUG, who had pressed charges against the municipality, continues.
On Monday afternoon, the local council discussed the matter. In a first step, the collective ZUG was given a favourable verdict by the administrative court, thus requesting that Luxembourg City should publish their documents on pedestrian safety. The city now wants to object.
The issue at hand, according to Mayor Lydie Polfer’s analysis, is not just about pedestrian safety, but about a broader principle. It sets a precedent, and now there is a need to determine the scope of protection for the mayor’s office documents, as outlined by municipal law. Another key concern is how the administration can function effectively if there is a constant fear that any document could be made public at any time.
“It is not about winners or ‘looking for trouble’, but it is about clarification. And we also vouch for more suggestions by the mayoral council.”
Furthermore, the requested documents contain security-related information that cannot be made public. According to the city, ZUG has repeatedly ignored invitations to review these documents.
The dispute with the collective has been ongoing for three years. ZUG argues that 475 crosswalks violate the Code de la Route, while the city counters that only 37 are non-compliant. To support their claim, the collective sought access to the aforementioned documents.
The opposition parties Dei Gréng, LSAP, dei Link and ADR, have also requested that those documents be made public. François Benoy of the Green Party argues:
“Enough time has been wasted with all of these court procedures. Enough money has been spent. I think we should not forget that the majority of tax money is being wasted on this case. In the end, ironically, the arguments are financed by the pedestrians.”
The decision has been made, but the disagreement between VDL and ZUG persists. In response to the town council meeting, ZUG issued a press release, stressing that the invitations to review certain documents were far below the level of information they deemed necessary. The most crucial request – access to an analysis of all the city’s crosswalks – was not granted. ZUG refutes the claim that they were unwilling to cooperate, asserting that they will continue to press for the information they believe is essential.
