I attended the “Kaffi mat der Police” event organized by Luxembourg Police (officially: Kaffi mat der Police). The format is intended as informal communication with citizens over coffee, without protocol or barriers. In practice, it is an interesting indicator: how willing is the police to engage in real dialogue rather than symbolic interaction?

Gare district: recognition without resolution

The first set of questions concerned the Gare de Luxembourg area, long seen as problematic.

Observable facts:

• open drug scene,
• aggressive behavior,
• organized and unorganized begging,
• recurring incidents.

When asked whether this is a systemic issue rather than isolated cases, the police effectively acknowledged the problem but immediately added limitations: “not everything depends on us.”

This means:

• the problem is recognized,
• responsibility is distributed across institutions.

Effectiveness: presence without outcome

Why does the situation not improve despite constant police presence?

Answer:

• work is ongoing,
• there are constraints,
• the system is more complex than it appears.

However, the key question remains unanswered:
Which parts of the current strategy are not working?

Without this, there is no meaningful evaluation of effectiveness.

“Return cycle”: systemic dysfunction

Repeated presence of the same individuals suggests:

• lack of effective tools,
• non-application of measures,
• or failure to complete enforcement cycles.

Organized activity

Public perception:
the same individuals remain present for months.

This creates the impression of:

• lack of control,
• selective enforcement,
• or insufficient coordination.

Key point: symptom management

Core admission:
the current model manages symptoms more than it solves the problem — “yes”.

The system is controlling consequences, not resolving causes.

Body cameras

• available,
• but not subject to mandatory continuous activation.

Implications:

• limited transparency,
• potential selective recording,
• reduced trust in evidence.

SLAPP and boundaries of authority

Example discussed: a performance involving a simulated charity collection related to a minor in Luxembourg ordered by court to pay legal costs.

Police reaction:

• fraud allegation,
• legal proceedings,
• full dismissal of charges.

This can resemble SLAPP-like pressure mechanisms.

Broader question:
Why does police intervention occur in civil or civic contexts?

Police argument

“If your child is kidnapped, you would call the police”

1. Topic substitution

2. false dilemma

3. emotional pressure

4. avoidance of core issue

Conclusion

problems acknowledged
limitations admitted
symptom management openly stated

no clear strategy
weak accountability mechanisms
limited transparency
rhetorical responses instead of substantive answers

There is dialogue, but it does not yet lead to systemic change.
The system is not focused on solving the problem — it is focused on controlling it.

And without this, such meetings risk remaining not a tool for solutions, but a tool for managing expectations. As long as the model does not change, the Gare district will remain not an exception, but the norm.

The post “Kaffi mat der Police”: dialogue or expectation management? appeared first on VENIA.

This refers to EU Directive 2024/1069, adopted in 2024, which aims to counter so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Such lawsuits are used not to protect rights, but to exert pressure and intimidation — primarily through legal costs, lengthy proceedings, and the risk of sanctions.
The directive provides, in particular, for the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims and for shifting costs onto the claimant.

In Luxembourg, this approach is currently being implemented through a national bill transposing the directive. The government emphasizes that the goal is to protect against attempts at “censorship and intimidation” through judicial procedures.

However, a fundamental problem arises here.

Limited Scope of Anti-SLAPP: A Blind Spot in the System

Despite its stated objectives, the European anti-SLAPP directive has a limited scope. It applies primarily to civil and commercial matters with a cross-border element.

This means that a significant portion of real pressure on journalists and activists — including:

• administrative procedures
• criminal prosecution

— remains outside these protection mechanisms.

These forms of pressure, in many countries including Luxembourg, are becoming key tools of influence. They are less visible than classic civil lawsuits but often more effective: administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings create a far stronger “chilling effect” than even costly litigation.

Thus, the formal transposition of the directive creates an illusion of protection while leaving the main channels of pressure untouched.

Even if such cases do not always result in actual imprisonment, the mere fact of criminal prosecution creates a powerful deterrent effect.

A classic example is the case of journalist Marc Thoma. He was convicted in Luxembourg for quoting a publication about alleged corruption. Only the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights led to the recognition of a violation of freedom of expression.

This case demonstrates that:

• criminal and quasi-criminal sanctions are applied to journalistic activity
• protection comes post factum — only after conviction
• the national system itself does not always prevent such cases

Another systemic example is the LuxLeaks case. Journalists and whistleblowers who exposed tax rulings were subjected to criminal prosecution and faced potential prison sentences.

Even though the public interest was ultimately recognized, the process:

• lasted for years
• involved serious legal risks
• had a pronounced chilling effect

Judicial Restrictions as a Form of Pressure

In more recent cases, pressure manifests not only through criminal law but also through judicial restrictions on the dissemination of information.

In the so-called “Nickts case,” a court prohibited journalists from RTL Luxembourg from naming a person convicted in a major fraud case.

The Press Council explicitly characterized this as a restriction on freedom of expression and the public’s right to information.

This practice is important because:

• formally, it is not a criminal punishment
• but in practice, it restricts the content of journalistic publications
• and constitutes direct interference in the work of the media

Second Vector: Restriction of Access to Justice

Against this background, particular attention is drawn to a second initiative — linked to draft law No. 8721, aimed at limiting the analysis and dissemination of information about case law (the initiative “against restrictions on the analysis of judicial decisions” on venia.lu).

This initiative raises a fundamental question: can society effectively oversee the judiciary if access to information about it is restricted?

The judicial system in Luxembourg is formally based on the principle of public hearings — as a guarantee of transparency and fairness.
However, restricting the ability to analyze judicial decisions — even if justified by personal data protection or other considerations — effectively narrows the space for public oversight.

For journalists and human rights defenders, this means:

• reduced ability to investigate judicial practice
• limitations on criticism of court decisions
• increased risks when publishing materials

The Paradox of Legal Policy

As a result, a paradoxical situation emerges:

On the one hand, Luxembourg:

• implements the European anti-SLAPP directive
• declares protection for journalists and human rights defenders

On the other hand:

• leaves key forms of pressure (administrative and criminal) unprotected
• promotes initiatives that restrict access to judicial information

This dual approach creates a contradiction between the formal and the actual protection of freedom of expression.

Conclusion

Real protection of journalists and human rights defenders is impossible without a comprehensive approach. This means:

• extending anti-SLAPP mechanisms to administrative and criminal procedures
• preserving and strengthening the openness of the judicial system
• ensuring the public’s right to analyze and criticize the judiciary

Without this, anti-SLAPP risks remaining a symbolic instrument — important on paper, but limited in practice.

The post Luxembourg Between Protection and Restrictions: The Paradox of Freedom of Expression appeared first on VENIA.

Our organization’s initiative

Our organization has sent an official letter to the Mayor and members of the City Council of Luxembourg, proposing to name the unnamed bridge between Rue Henri Dunant and Rue des Hauts-Fourneaux, near the Embassy of the Russian Federation.

Proposed name: “Boris Nemtsov Bridge.”

Why Boris Nemtsov?

Boris Nemtsov was a Russian politician and human rights advocate, tragically assassinated on a bridge in Moscow in 2015.
His death became a symbol of courage, civic bravery, and the struggle for freedom.

“Naming a bridge in Luxembourg after Boris Nemtsov would be a powerful act of peaceful remembrance and a symbol of respect for freedom, courage, and democracy,” the letter states.

Symbolic significance

A bridge crossed daily by drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists can become a living reminder of the defense of human rights and of those who sacrificed their lives for these principles.

This initiative would enrich Luxembourg’s toponymic heritage and foster open civic dialogue on justice, freedom, and human courage.

Support the initiative!

We invite everyone to honor the memory and values of Boris Nemtsov so that this bridge becomes a symbol of freedom and courage in Luxembourg.

The post 🕊 In Luxembourg, we propose naming a bridge after Boris Nemtsov appeared first on VENIA.

This is not merely a financial institution, but a structure linked to Gazprombank — one of the key elements of Russia’s financial system.

Sanctions already exist — but not in Luxembourg

The bank is already subject to U.S. sanctions under Executive Order 13662 and Executive Order 14024, imposed through the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

According to U.S. authorities, such entities help Russia maintain access to international financial channels despite sanctions pressure.

In effect, these mechanisms enable the circumvention of restrictions and support the financial stability of a state engaged in war.

A question of responsibility: can this be ignored?

We emphasize that in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the numerous civilian casualties, any financial infrastructure connected to the Russian banking system carries not only economic, but also moral consequences.

In our view, allowing such structures to continue operating in Luxembourg:

• undermines the country’s reputation as a financial center
• creates risks of involvement in sanctions circumvention
• raises questions of political responsibility

Demands to Parliament

The appeal calls on the Chambre des Députés to:

• Urgently consider the introduction of national sanctions against GPB International S.A.;
• Align national legislation with measures adopted by allies, including the United States and the European Union;
• Strengthen oversight of financial flows linked to sanctioned entities;
• Ensure transparency and public accountability in decision-making on this issue.

Luxembourg at a crossroads

This situation places Luxembourg before a fundamental choice:
to maintain its status as a neutral financial platform or to adopt a firmer stance within the framework of international sanctions policy.

The post We Call for Sanctions Against GPB International S.A. Due to Its Links with the Russian Financial System appeared first on VENIA.

The association aims to:

Ensure the protection of human rights, in particular by providing legal assistance to victims, representing and defending them before competent judicial authorities, and supporting vulnerable groups;

Conduct awareness campaigns and combat all forms of discrimination;

Collect, document, and analyze data related to human rights violations, as well as prepare and publish relevant reports;

Promote initiatives and proposals for legislative or regulatory reforms aimed at strengthening the protection of rights;

Provide information, support, and assistance to persons seeking international protection;

Contribute to social and civic education in order to encourage active participation in public life.

The post VENIA — Values, Engagement, Norms, Inclusion, Assistance appeared first on VENIA.