The Court of Auditors’ special report on the expenditures of the Grand Ducal Court from 2021 and 2022 was on the agenda of two parliamentary commissions on Monday. The report, which was published last November, put forward a critical analysis, highlighting faulty internal inspection measures, a lack of expenditure transparency and rigorous accounting procedures, and ambiguity regarding the official and private activities of the Grand Ducal family, thus calling for the strengthening of all these procedures and a clear distinction between official and private activities.
PM Luc Frieden on Monday appeared alongside Court Marshal Sasha Baillie before the parliamentary commission to provide clarification. According to Frieden, the report did not find any “fundamental structural problems” that would require immediate changes to the Court. He added that it would be productive to wait for Baillie to fully take on her role as Court Marshal, while also cautioning that current Lieutenant-Representative, Hereditary Prince Guillaume, will become Grand Duke in October of this year, potentially bringing his own plans to reshape the Court.
Read also – Luxembourg’s Grand Ducal Court: The wealthiest in Europe with €3.7 billion in assetsMP Franz Fayot of the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP) expressed his regret over the fact that his proposal to invite former Court Marshal Paul Dühr was dismissed. Fayot also voiced criticism against Frieden for taking up most of the speaking time rather than letting Baille lay out her case.
The LSAP and The Greens (Déi Gréng) underscored that five years have already passed since the launch of the Waringo report, which closely examined the inner workings of the Grand Ducal Court. MP Sam Tanson of The Greens and MP Sven Clement of the Pirate Party each called for the implementation of measures proposed by Waringo for further clarity and accountability in the distinction between the private and official expenditures of the Grand Ducal Court.
MPs are meanwhile impatiently awaiting the results of the Court’s inventory, in progress for a staggering four years, which is to identify the assets belonging to the state and those belonging to the Court.
