Following several articles in the national press regarding the procedure for the temporary suspension of a doctor, the Ministry of Health and Social Security has sought to set the record straight.
In a statement released on Thursday, the Ministry emphasised that the procedure is strictly governed by Article 16 of the amended law of 29 April 1983, which regulates the practice of medical professions in Luxembourg.
Contrary to recent suggestions, the appointment of the expert is not the responsibility of the Minister of Health, but rather of the head of the National Health Directorate. The Ministry stressed that the procedures laid out in the law are designed to guarantee a balance between the parties and ensure the independence of the expert assessment.
This question of independence lies at the heart of the Ministry’s clarification. According to the statement, only a personal or professional connection likely to objectively compromise impartiality can constitute a conflict of interest. The Ministry maintains that the appointed expert “undeniably meets this criterion”, stating there is no connection – either personal or professional – with the individuals involved in the administrative procedure, nor with the doctors who originally reported the matter to the Medical Board.
The Ministry pushed back against elements highlighted in some articles – such as having contributed to the same scientific paper ten years ago or joint membership of an international learned society – arguing that these cannot reasonably call into question an expert’s independence in the medical field. Such an interpretation, it said, would be “erroneous”.
The Ministry also clarified the scope of the expert’s mission, refuting claims made by the defence for the doctor concerned that the examination is limited to facts that could be classified as criminal offences. The objective is broader: to ensure patient safety. The experts will analyse the medical evidence “with complete autonomy” before delivering their conclusions, upon which the final decision will be based. The Ministry stated that this decision must reflect “the full and complete medical truth”, in the interest of both the practitioner and public health.
Having received a request for a stay of execution, the administrative court rejected the application by order on 13 February 2026.
Wishing to preserve the proper conduct of the procedure and the rights of all parties, the Ministry has indicated that it will make “no further comment” at this stage.
