A Luxembourg court recently sentenced a man to 13 years in prison (with eight suspended) for indecent assault, sexual exploitation of children, production/distribution of child pornography, and possession of illegal content. The case – which took six years from initial report to conviction – has sparked questions about investigative delays and victim protection.
On 21 August 2019, Luxembourg’s Youth Protection and Sexual Offences Section received a Europol report linking a prominent theatre figure to 72 downloaded images of child sexual abuse. Yet it took ten months – until 9 July 2020 – for police to search his home. During that period, the suspect remained free, with no confirmed explanation for the delay.
Even after the search – which seized 17 hard drives, 16 DVDs, three memory cards, and two phones – the man continued living at home with his family, including his underage daughter, who was later identified as a victim. He also maintained involvement in cultural associations. His wife and daughter were not interviewed until March 2023, nearly three years after the search. The case concluded in summer 2024, with a first-instance verdict issued on 27 March 2025. The defendant has since appealed.
Investigators analysed over 23,000 files, including videos – a process hampered by staff shortages in key police units. The public prosecutor’s office told RTL: “The New Technologies and Youth Protection Sections lack the personnel to handle their caseloads efficiently,” adding that the fact that the investigation took place during the Covid-19 pandemic led to further delays.
The Casemates Theatre, where the convicted man was a member, has publicly criticised what it calls “a flaw in the judicial system,” arguing that earlier notification could have prevented potential contact with minors during the investigation. While the public prosecutor’s office confirms the man was under judicial supervision since 2023 - with restrictions including no contact with minors - questions remain about enforcement, particularly regarding his own underage daughter.
Authorities disclosed that the Central Social Assistance Service (SCAS) conducted a family social investigation but declined to specify when, citing Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act: “We cannot provide further details.”
When asked if institutions like the theatre or employers should have been alerted to potential risks, prosecutors emphasised multiple legal barriers including Data Protection Act restrictions, investigation secrecy requirements, and presumption of innocence obligations. In a written statement, they noted: “It would be more than delicate for us, as ‘judicial authorities’, to disregard these principles and disclose sensitive information to third parties.”
The judicial authorities currently face legal constraints in sharing sensitive data, but a potential solution is underway. The Ju-Cha 7882B bill, part of the broader Criminal Justice reform package, seeks to establish clearer rules for disclosing judicial information to third parties.
Former Justice Minister Sam Tanson of the Green Party (Déi Gréng), who introduced the bill, explained that this bill will be particularly relevant “in cases of suspected paedophile crimes involving individuals who work with children.” If passed, the law would allow authorities to notify employers, associations, or clubs about risks in specific circumstances.
The bill has sparked debate, as it navigates tensions between data protection, presumption of innocence, and public safety. While awaiting legislative action, the Prosecutor General has adopted an informal approach to high-risk cases. The public prosecutor’s office stated: “We would welcome this bill’s swift implementation.”
Child sexual abuse crimes carry varying sentences based on the nature of the act, the victim’s age, and the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim.
Sexual assault of a minor under 16 carries a prison sentence of 5 to 10 years. Cases involving violence or threats, or where the victim is under 13, warrant 15 to 20 years imprisonment. The most severe penalties of 20 to 30 years apply when violence is used against a child under 13. These sentences can be doubled when the perpetrator is a family member of the victim.
The production and distribution of child pornography carries a base prison sentence of five years, with penalties escalating based on the victim’s age. Offences involving victims under 16 warrant 5 to 10 years imprisonment, while cases with victims under 11 face 10 to 15 years. These sentences may be combined with additional charges when other crimes are involved.
The Criminal Code also specifically criminalises the online solicitation of minors (grooming), prescribing 1 to 5 years imprisonment. Penalties become more severe when the perpetrator holds a position of authority over the victim - such as being a family member, coach, or teacher - or when the grooming is connected to other sexual offences like abuse or possession of child pornography.
