During the second week of a trial against a Luxembourg gynaecologist accused of rape and sexual assault by four former patients, the court heard testimony from two of the defendant’s former colleagues at the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg (CHL), as well as from a former, short-term associate. The defendant faces allegations of inappropriately touching the genitalia and chest areas of patients during consultations.
The two CHL doctors recounted a specific incident from 2013 that had left a lasting impression. They testified that a female patient had approached them to ask whether it was normal to receive a genital massage during a gynaecological exam. One of the doctors, who was in training at the time, reported the question to his supervisor. He told the court the enquiry was so unusual that he remembers it clearly to this day. He stated that while the matter was discussed among clinic staff, no formal action or consequences followed. He identified the gynaecologist in question as the current defendant.
The same witness also recalled speaking with one of the presumed victims, who reported being fondled and subjected to inappropriate comments by the defendant. He noted, however, that she did not provide detailed accounts and that a formal complaint had already been lodged at the time of their conversation.
The second CHL doctor testified that he, too, recalled staff discussions about the defendant in connection with the 2013 incident. Like the previous witness, he said he was unaware of any disciplinary measures resulting from those conversations. He described his professional relationship with the defendant as generally good but noted the accused often seemed dissatisfied with his work. The doctor also emphasised the difficulty gynaecologists face in defending themselves against such accusations, adding that he personally avoids being alone with patients who appear “fragile or insecure” as a precaution.
In the final hour of the session, the court heard from the defendant’s former business associate, with whom he shared a medical surgery for three months. The witness testified that he first met the defendant at a medical congress in Argentina in the early 1990s. Having grown up in South America and later lived in France before moving to Luxembourg, the witness said their professional paths crossed again years later at a congress in Europe, where the defendant proposed they open a surgery together.
According to the witness, the partnership quickly soured due to disagreements over the surgery’s accounting practices. The dispute led to their separation after only three months, with the witness filing a legal complaint against the defendant.
Following the split, the witness said several of the defendant’s former patients continued seeing him for gynaecological care. One of these patients later asked whether it was normal for a gynaecologist to perform a genital massage during a consultation. When the presiding judge asked if he had advised her to file a police report, the witness clarified that while he did not explicitly recommend a criminal complaint, he did urge her to report the incident to the appropriate authorities.
Later in his testimony, the judge questioned whether the witness had authored one of the complaints submitted by a presumed victim – a possibility raised by the defence due to the document’s phrasing. The former associate firmly denied having done so.
In a separate development on Tuesday, the defendant’s lawyers, Lydie Lorang and Frank Rollinger, filed a perjury complaint against one of the alleged victims. They contest the woman’s statement that she cannot remember who drafted her complaint. Rollinger expressed hope that the public prosecutor’s office would initiate criminal proceedings against her. He added that the defence also believes the former business associate made false statements and intends to file a second perjury complaint in connection with his testimony.
