Luxembourg’s new asylum law has drawn sharp criticism from civil society groups, who warn that the legislation could compromise children’s rights.
The Luxembourg Refugee Council, the Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CCDH), UNICEF Luxembourg, and the Ombudsman for Children’s Rights (OKAJU) have not only questioned the bill’s content but also the legislative process through which it was adopted.
The Chamber of Deputies approved the law last week as part of the implementation of the European asylum and migration pact. In a joint response on Wednesday morning, several civil society actors voiced strong disapproval, pointing to both substantive flaws and procedural irregularities.
The organisations criticised the government for disregarding more than 20 submitted opinions and commentaries – a volume they describe as unprecedented in domestic legislative practice. Sergio Ferreira of the Luxembourg Refugee Council noted that the submissions came not only from civil society but also from institutions such as the Luxembourg Bar Association. Their collective dismissal, Ferreira argued, suggested that the government’s primary objective was expediency rather than thorough deliberation.
The CCDH echoed this concern, stating that the bill was rushed through with insufficient time allowed for proper review of amendments.
On the substance of the law, CCDH President Noémie Sadler said her commission’s main objection concerns the introduction of “screening centres,” where asylum seekers will be processed immediately upon arrival.
Sadler criticised the tight seven-day timeframe for completing all procedures, including vulnerability assessments. While the bill requires checks for possible trafficking victims, it offers no concrete guidance on how such identification should be carried out, she said. In line with UNICEF and OKAJU, the CCDH also objects to the provision allowing 16-year-olds to be placed in detention.
The screening evaluation will determine the type of protection or care granted to each individual. Sadler further noted that staff may begin work without prior training, and even if training is provided, its effectiveness remains unclear. She also lamented that the legislation misses an opportunity to strengthen cooperation on human trafficking prevention.
According to Sadler, the CCDH finds it “surprising” and “irritating” that no further victim identification measures are planned at key contact points such as the Directorate of Immigration or the National Reception Office (ONA). Instead, only a standardised procedure will be applied – again without clear operational details. Given that trafficking victims are almost certain to be present among the incoming population, the CCDH described the omission as bewildering and difficult to justify.
Charel Schmit, the Ombudsman for Children’s Rights, also issued a strong rebuke of the new legislation. From a children’s rights perspective, he argued, the detention that takes place at screening centres has been untenable from the outset. Schmit highlighted what he called the absurdity of Luxembourg introducing detention through the back door and downplaying its significance, at the very moment when France is moving to abolish preventive detention. He drew a parallel to what he described as a similar contradiction: Luxembourg placing minors as young as 11 or 12 in adult prisons while claiming it is for their own protection.
The OKAJU further criticised the government for once again missing an opportunity to establish an evaluation commission dedicated to children’s interests.
Alexandra Gardeur of UNICEF Luxembourg echoed the concern, stressing the need for dedicated reception facilities for children. She argued that a child should always be regarded first and foremost as a child – rather than as a case to be processed through a complex administrative system for status determination.
On the subject of reception conditions, Schmit offered particularly pointed remarks, noting that one in five cases brought to the ombudsman’s office concerns migration. According to him, a significant portion of these relate to the daily living conditions faced by the roughly 2,000 children and young people housed in Luxembourg’s refugee facilities. He described the current procedures and structures as "dehumanising," questioning the impact on children and families when they are subjected to repeated security checks – up to five X-ray scans per day, akin to airport screening. "What does that do to families," he asked, "when they are watched over in their daily lives almost as if in a prison and are placed under constant general suspicion? That affects people. And not in a positive way."
Schmit placed particular responsibility on political leaders and, above all, on municipal authorities. He criticised that as long as towns and cities continue to prioritise luxury developments without allocating comparable budgets to social housing, a reversal of current policy will remain out of reach. "Politicians must show courage here, hold municipalities accountable, and penalise those that evade this national solidarity," Schmit demanded.
He is now calling for a tripartite agreement on social housing – bringing together government, employers, and unions to address the crisis. At the same time, he expressed gratitude to all those who work with refugee children on a daily basis, from school educators to youth football coaches, describing their efforts as bringing "rays of hope" into the children's everyday lives.
