The Luxembourg government holds that public behaviour in certain areas has deteriorated to the point where police need additional tools to maintain order. Reflecting this stance, Interior Minister Léon Gloden presented a draft law in July of last year aimed at strengthening public order enforcement. The proposal includes the introduction of a reinforced exclusion order and a temporary ban on remaining in designated areas.
However, after the Council of State raised around half a dozen formal objections to the draft, criticism among members of the civil society has also been growing.
One of the most vocal opponents is the Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CCDH). The Commission argues that the draft law is not based on factual evidence but rather on a subjective sense of insecurity. In their view, the government has increasingly sidelined statistics in favour of perceptions – a concern heightened by the fact that no impact analysis has been conducted on the existing exclusion order introduced in 2022.
A particular concern lies in the expanded conditions under which the new exclusion order could be applied. The draft foresees its use not only in cases where individuals block entrances or exits of buildings, as is currently the case, but also in situations where someone disturbs public order, cleanliness, or safety, obstructs traffic in a public space, or harasses pedestrians.
Legal expert Rhéa Ziadé from the CCDH warned that these vague and broadly defined categories could lead to arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement, depending heavily on the interpretation of individual police officers or the directives they follow.
The association ‘Solidaritéit mat den Heescherten’ (‘Solidarity with beggars’) shares these concerns. Founded in response to the ban on begging, the group views the proposed law as part of a broader attempt to marginalise vulnerable people.
Association president Guy Foetz argues that terms like “exclusion order” and “residency ban” are misleading. While such measures do exist in other countries like Germany, he says, they are typically used to respond to immediate threats in specific situations.
In contrast, Luxembourg’s proposed law could turn them into permanent tools targeting people who are homeless or who beg simply because their presence may be perceived as disruptive, he asserted.
Critics also take issue with the duration and scope of the measures. Under the draft, an exclusion order would automatically last 48 hours, during which the affected person must stay at least one kilometre away from the location where the alleged disturbance occurred. This, they argue, is not only excessive but also practically impossible to enforce.
In addition, if someone receives two exclusion orders within 30 days – regardless of whether for the same reason – a mayor could impose a ban of up to 30 days. Ziadé notes that the perimeter for such a ban is poorly defined, with the only restriction being that it may not cover an entire municipality. She believes this still leaves far too much room for interpretation.
Another major concern is the lack of legal oversight. In some German states, any residency ban exceeding 14 days must be reviewed by a court. In Luxembourg, no such requirement exists, meaning that significant power is being placed in the hands of local mayors without sufficient checks and balances. This, say the CCDH and the association, undermines the principle of separation of powers.
Finally, the consequences for violating a residency ban are also being questioned. Offenders could face fines ranging from €25 to €250, and those unable to pay risk short-term imprisonment.
Both organisations thus conclude that the draft law is excessive in scope and flawed in execution. Their recommendation is clear: the bill should be withdrawn.
