In the appeal trial, the defendant was sentenced to a €2,000 fine due to online comments 'that could incite hatred against a group of people due to their origins.'
The trial concerned events returning to September 2015, when the man had written incendiary comments against migrants on Facebook. The man had alleged that migrant children beat up and steal from Luxembourgish children and deal drugs in schools, adding that the authorities do nothing against the issue.
In December 2018, the Court of Cassation called for a so-called rupture in the deliberations. The sentencing was paused in order to allow both parties, namely the lawyer representing the defendant, and the public prosecutor's office, to react to the fact that the second judge - in the appeal trial - had failed to define the temporal circumstances of the infraction in question. The prosecutor provided their position in June, followed by the lawyer in September.
Having returned to the Court of Cassation, the judges have steadfastly ruled that every ruling requires justifications, which include defining the circumstances surrounding the infraction.
The appeal ruling must consequently be overturned, as the appeal sentence confirmed the first ruling, but the exact timings and circumstances of the infraction the man was found guilty of were not appropriately defined. Consequently, this ruling violated the procedural criminal code and the case must return to the Court of Appeals. The state will have to cover the legal fees for the Court of Cassation.
