The right to non-discrimination

The constitution makes a distinction based on citizenship, although around half of the population does not have citizenship. Non-citizens can participate in municipal and EU elections. Until 2019 you had to renounce your former nationality to become a Luxembourg citizen. However, the Luxembourgish language requirement remained an obstacle to obtain citizenship. Some CSOs had been pushing for more rights for non-nationals. As about 50% of residents were not voting, it meant that a large part of the population was not represented and this was increasingly becoming a problem, notably with regards to housing. Housing was the biggest problem in Luxembourg, which was also a discrimination issue. Housing had long been a problem in Luxembourg, but only now that it was also affecting voting citizens had it become a political issue. One participant estimated that only 3% of the population could access home ownership. It was also becoming a recruitment issue, as it was difficult to recruit due to the housing situation. The winter truce had also not been working well, with many families evicted during the winter period. According to participants, although there were no statistics, there were three groups of immigrants mainly affected by discrimination: Portuguese, Muslims and Black people. Discrimination also affected education, as the educational system was not adapted to the multicultural situation and led to different educational attainment outcomes. According to participants, many immigrants and their descendants mostly got technical education, in comparison to natives where education attainment was higher. They ascribed this to language issues, as many schools offered education in German, whereas many migrants spoke mainly French, and this later translated into the job market. Furthermore, Belgian, German and French diplomas were recognised, but not Portuguese. The government pointed out that they were making efforts to open international schools and provide a larger offer and that there was a large offer of education in different languages. Participants mentioned that language requirements were also a barrier for access to the job market, where it is a requirement to speak two languages. In the public administration, you also had to speak Luxemburgish. One participant mentioned that the first Muslim woman admitted to the bar had to remove her veil when sworn in. Some participants also felt that a recent security package on drugs, targeting the main station area, indirectly signalled that migrants were criminals as they predominantly lived in this area. Despite multiculturalism in Luxembourg, racism was present and there had been differences in treatment of Ukrainian and Syrian refugees. Participants believed that the Luxemburgish authorities had been sleeping for too long on racism, as well as on women's rights. The FRA study Being black in the EU showed high levels of discrimination in the EU, including on the basis of skin colour. According to a participant, black children were more often placed in institutions or foster care in Luxembourg. Following lobbying from CSOs, the government wanted to introduce an action plan against racism. Participants were impatient to see this implemented, but no persons of colour, nor CSOs representing them, had been consulted. Since 2017 CSOs have called for an observatory on racism, but there was 5 only an inter-ministerial envoy with limited competences. Some participants felt that there was no need for an observatory, but called for better use of existing structures and inclusion of people of colour. The government pointed out that Luxembourg’s very existence was due to foreigners, and that it was preparing a new bill on immigration. In recent years there had been some progress on hate speech. The press showed sensitivity, but on the web hate speech was more prevalent due to lack of content moderation. There was a need for more awareness raising, including among journalists. Participants found refugee facilities lacking. Due to the problematic housing situation in Luxembourg, it was also difficult to be housed once a residence permit was granted, leading to overcrowded facilities. Participants mentioned that out of 13 facilities, one had rooms without daylight, and despite calls to close it, it was still open at the time of the EESC’s visit. It took too long to appoint ad hoc administrators for unaccompanied minors, and this was a big problem because it prevented the child from accessing schooling. There had been progress as regards the rights of the child, but the juvenile justice system was outdated. There had been three attempts to reform it, but none adopted. Child protection was unnecessarily judicialised. The placement of a third of the children in institutions had been approved by a judge, and children were not automatically designated an independent lawyer to represent them. In many other countries it was the bar that would make the selection independently from the court system. Many children were unaware of, and were not advised about, their right to have a lawyer. If a child is in conflict with the law, they should be able to change an appointed lawyer to one of their choosing. Pretrial detention of children happened and children could be imprisoned for three months, with the possibility of prolongation. Children up to 15 years stayed in institutions for youth, and at the time of the visit three young people about 16-17 years old were held in an adult prison. Luxembourg had not implemented the recommendation for child-friendly justice by the UNs Committee on the Rights of the Child. There was still no minimum age for criminal responsibility and no specific criminal law for minors. Gender equality remained an issue, with women still bearing the brunt of household chores and being underrepresented in positions of power. Although the official gender pay gap is only 0.7%, there are big variations in sectors, e.g. finance, where it is more like 30%. One participant mentioned that in the legal profession progress has been made, but at senior partner level there was still a big gender gap. Luxembourg had ratified the Istanbul Convention, but it still needed to be fully implemented. CSOs called for an extension of the period of limitation for reporting rape from 10 to 30 years, as well as more action with regards to psychological violence, harassment etc., in addition to the measures against domestic violence. Domestic violence was also exacerbated by the housing crisis. A child would, for instance, be given to a violent parent who had housing, with the victim losing both housing and child. This was more pronounced for non-nationals who have no local family or support network. A participant mentioned that instances like the Centre for Equal Treatment, the Consultative Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman were not direct complaints mechanisms. A participant mentioned, for instance, that the long-term obligation to employ people with disabilities was not enforced and there was no follow-up or monitoring.