Freedom of association and assembly

Participants mentioned the problems for homeless people during the pandemic, where there had been several problems with access to assistance and health care for them. Participants mentioned that there could potentially be a risk of self-censorship for organisations that received large amounts of funding. Some people were in irregular situations, which made it difficult for them to speak up about their plight and to obtain the needed care. Associations were not allowed to distribute written material concerning the possibility to obtain medical care in Luxembourg, such information was only allowed to be given orally, as the authorities wanted to prevent medical tourism.

In Luxembourg the right to assembly was well protected, but during late 2021 there had been a number of protests against covid measures that had turned violent. Such protests were unusual in Luxembourg and the police had been unprepared and had to receive help from Belgian police forces. Participants felt that there was a need to legislate to clarify the exercise of the right to protest. Some politicians had made declarations about the protection of police that could potentially be cause for concern. The government had established a working group, but consultation had not taken place at the time of writing. CSOs tried to maintain a dialogue on this, as they wanted more transparency about this reflection process and its potential impact on the right to protest.

Organisations could form freely and the overall environment for CSOs was favourable. There was a project among CSOs to create a joint platform; such a platform existed on migration and it meets frequently. A justified reform of the statute of associations or ASBL was underway, but it could potentially create challenges for some very small CSOs. The rules on privacy sometimes complicated life for small associations which had difficulties complying with all the requirements, and CSOs also experienced that they were unable to obtain information because of privacy regulations. Funding requirements were generally reasonable and recipients had become more professionalised. Larger and 3 more professional CSOs obtained around 80% of the funding, like in many other countries. Human rights organisations did not have many sources of financing unless they were involved in training or provision of social services. Some were working with schools and educating children in participation and empowerment. Others, e.g. the scouts, were more ingrained in the culture and had different relations.

CSOs were consulted on rules concerning associations, and in 2018 when there had been a global assessment of development cooperation there had been frequent discussions with the ministry. CSOs had managed to influence certain points although the general vision had not changed.

In the past CSOs had been implicated during disease outbreaks like monkey pox, tuberculosis and covid among migrants in irregular situations. However, instead of lessons being learnt from earlier good practices they had to start over every time.