On Friday 6 February 2026, Voĉo, a civil society network bringing together 28 organisations in Luxembourg, published a statement reacting to proposed changes to legislation on public gatherings and public order measures.
According to Voĉo, Luxembourg's Minister of Home Affairs has withdrawn the preliminary draft law on outdoor gatherings in publicly accessible places, while proposing amendments to the draft law on the so-called “strengthened Platzverweis”. The network welcomed the withdrawal of the draft law on public gatherings but reiterated its categorical opposition to the “strengthened Platzverweis” bill.
The preliminary draft law on gatherings was intended to regulate the organisation of political demonstrations in Luxembourg and included provisions such as checks, authorisation requirements and potential sanctions for organisers and participants. Its withdrawal was described as “a significant step forward for civil society”.
At the same time, the organisation noted that such legislation could also have provided an opportunity to explicitly enshrine in law the right to demonstrate, including spontaneous demonstrations and counter-demonstrations. It could also have introduced a national notification system for demonstrations, instead of the authorisation systems currently applied in most municipalities, and helped harmonise procedures across the country to facilitate the organisation of protests. In this context, Voĉo stressed that “many challenges in this area remain” for civil society.
As regards draft law No. 8426 on the so-called “strengthened Platzverweis”, the amended text was described as “highly problematic”, with the organisation reiterating its call for the bill’s complete withdrawal.
Responding to the State Council’s repeated formal objections to the imprecise nature of the concept of “disturbance to public tranquillity, public health and public safety”, which the Council described as a “very general formulation” subject to police interpretation and lacking the foreseeability required by the European Convention on Human Rights, the statement noted that the revised text now shifts to the notion of “disturbance of public order”.
According to the network, this change does not resolve the underlying issue, as the concept of “public order” remains equally vague and open to interpretation by police officers. It added that procedural explanations given by police during a removal or ban from a location “do not remedy this lack of foreseeability”.
The amended bill would allow individuals deemed to be disturbing public order to be removed for up to 48 hours, if necessary by force, and banned from an area within a one-kilometre radius for up to fifteen days. While this represents a reduction from the 30-day period proposed in the previous version, Voĉo underlined that “this does not change the substance of the measure”.
By contrast, the organisation pointed out that German law, on which the concept of “Platzverweis” is based, allows bans from specific places only in cases of an imminent and serious danger, for limited periods and where there is a risk of criminal offences being committed. None of these conditions are met in the Luxembourg draft, it added, recalling that the State Council had previously suggested abandoning the entire section on bans from places, which it considers a violation of the right to freedom of movement.
Voĉo further warned that the Luxembourg text remains vague and could affect “any person whose behaviour is deemed inappropriate”, with groups such as beggars, demonstrators and street-based sex workers identified as being particularly at risk.
The only notable improvement highlighted in the statement is the removal of mayors from the procedure for implementing bans from places.
In conclusion, Voĉo stated that the complete withdrawal of the draft law on the “strengthened Platzverweis” is “a matter of social justice and human rights”.
