UN NOUVEAU PLAFONNEMENT DES LOYERS EN MATIERE DE SOUS-LOCATION COMMERCIALE

Sous-location commerciale :

Dans le cadre d’une décision très attendue où l’étude REAL Avocats a le privilège de défendre les intérêts d’une société sous-locataire d’un local commercial, la justice de paix d’Esch-sur-Alzette vient de préciser la notion de bénéfice raisonnable suite à l’intervention de l’arrêt de la Cour Constitutionnelle du 23 décembre 2022. La suite dans cet article.

Un jugement rendu par la justice de paix de Esch-sur-Alzette en date du 2 novembre 2023 vient d’apporter une clarification très attendue en posant les limites des nouvelles restrictions applicables en matière de fixation des loyers dans le cadre de la sous-location commerciale.

Pour rappel, dans le cadre d’un arrêt retentissant rendu en date du 23 décembre 2022, les juges de la Cour Constitutionnelle de Luxembourg ont estimé que le plafonnement légal du loyer en matière de sous-location commerciale qui avait été institué par la loi du 3 février 2018 modifiant le Code civil (art. 1762-6 §. 4) n’était pas conforme à la Constitution luxembourgeoise dans la mesure où il constituait une restriction disproportionnée à la liberté de commerce et de l’industrie.

Toutefois, soucieuse de pas réduire à néant les mesures prises par le législateur afin de limiter les opérations spéculatives au détriment du marché de la location et du développement des activités commerciales industrielles et artisanales, la Cour constitutionnelle a pris le soin de laisser une porte ouverte à la mise en place d’un régime transitoire dans l’attente du vote d’une nouvelle loi rectifiée.

La Cour Constitutionnelle a en effet précisé dans son arrêt du 23 décembre 2022 que :

« En attendant une intervention réparatrice du législateur, l’équilibre entre le but légitime recherché par la disposition légale sous examen et la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie est réalisé si le loyer du contrat de sous-location ne dépasse pas le loyer payé par le preneur au bailleur principal, majoré de ses frais d’exploitation relatifs à la sous­ location et d’un bénéfice raisonnable. »

En procédant de la sorte, la Cour constitutionnelle a ainsi laissé le soin aux juridictions luxembourgeoises de déterminer les modalités d’application de ce nouveau régime transitoire.

Dans le cadre de son jugement rendu en date du 2 novembre 2023, la Justice de paix de Esch sur Alzette a eu l’occasion de se prononcer sur cette épineuse question.

La question la plus complexe consistait pour le juge à préciser et encadrer la notion de bénéfice raisonnable auquel peut prétendre un commerçant dans le cadre de son activité de sous-location commerciale en tenant compte de deux impératifs de natures opposées, à savoir :

  • d’une part, le respect de la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie autorisant le bailleur à tirer profit de son activité et,
  • d’autre part, la lutte contre les opérations spéculatives consistant à donner en location des locaux commerciaux pour les sous-louer par la suite, à des prix nettement supérieurs.

En réponse à cette question, le Juge de paix a décidé de suivre la proposition qui lui a été soumise à l’audience par l’étude REAL Avocat et a considéré que ce bénéfice raisonnable devrait être fixé, non pas in concreto (au cas par cas) en tenant de compte de critères propres à chaque litige qui pourrait survenir, mais sur base d’un pourcentage déterminé et applicable de façon identique à chaque cas d’espèce.

Ce faisant, l’ensemble des justiciables seront en possession d’une méthode de calcul simple qui aura également pour avantage de limiter le nombres de litiges potentiels qui pourraient naître dans cette matière en pleine transformation.

Le Tribunal de paix a ainsi considéré que le bénéfice raisonnable auquel pourra prétendre un commerçant en matière de sous location commerciale pourra être calculé sous la forme d’une marge commerciale de 10 % sur le loyer principal.

En d’autres termes, le loyer du contrat de sous-location ne pourra pas dépasser de plus de 10% le loyer payé par le preneur au bailleur principal, majoré de ses frais d’exploitation relatifs à la sous­ location.

Les termes exacts de la décision sont les suivant:

« Conformément aux développements de la société 1 (le sous-locataire), le tribunal considère qu’il y a lieu de fixer un pourcentage déterminé du loyer auquel pourra prétendre le locataire principal s’il procède à la sous-location.

Cette façon de procéder évite aux parties de recourir dans chaque dossier à la nomination d’un expert et elle a l’avantage de procurer une certaine sécurité juridique au niveau du calcul du prix des sous-locations commerciales.

Le tribunal considère qu’un taux de marge de 10% sur le loyer principal constitue un juste équilibre permettant au locataire principal de tirer un bénéfice raisonnable de son activité de sous-location sans pour autant augmenter de manière démesurée la charge supplémentaire imposée au sous-locataire qui exploite les lieux en sa qualité de commerçant par rapport au loyer qu’il aurait dû payer s’il avait contracté directement avec le propriétaire des lieux loués.»

Reste à préciser que cette décision a été rendue en première instance, de sorte qu’elle est toujours susceptible de faire l’objet d’une procédure d’appel et ne peut donc pas encore être assimilée à une véritable jurisprudence.

Il n’en reste pas moins qu’il s’agit d’une décision qui nous semble aller dans le bon sens, dans la mesure où elle a pour vertu d’instaurer un équilibre souhaitable entre le respect de la liberté du commerce et la lutte contre les opérations spéculatives, tout autant qu’elle permettra de préserver la sécurité juridique des justiciables.

Le covid et la danse au 8 janvier 2021

La nouvelle loi sur les mesures de lutte contre la pandémie Covid-19 votée ce vendredi 8 janvier 2021 prévoit un allègement des mesures entrées en vigueur le 26 décembre 2020. Alors que les mesures s’assouplissent, cet assouplissement est strictement encadré posant la question de l’organisation pratique de certaines activités. En effet, en ce qui concerne les activités sportives, celles-ci sont réglementées afin de limiter la propagation du virus. 

Les salles de sport ou les écoles de danse peuvent rouvrir sous peine de respecter certaines conditions. Ainsi, il est impératif de respecter une distance interpersonnelle permanent d’au moins deux mètres entre les personnes et le port du masque n’est plus obligatoire durant l’exercice de l’activité physique. De plus dans les salles fermées et pour les cours jusqu’à  deux personnes, 25m2 doivent être respectés par personne, à savoir une superficie de 50m2 pour deux personnes présentes. À partir de 3 personnes et jusqu’à 10 personnes, 30m2 par personne doivent être respectés, donc par exemple 300m2 pour 10 personnes. 

La loi ne prévoit pas d’allègement des mesures si les activités sportives ou de culture physique sont exécutées avec port de masque.

Les nouvelles règles sont ainsi tellement conditionnées que pour certaines écoles de danse, l’ouverture semble impossible, voir illogique sachant que la taille des salles n’est souvent pas plus grande que 50m2. Cela reviendrait à organiser des cours individuels entre un professeur et un(e) élève. Un assouplissement finalement pas aussi souple apparemment. 

THE (UN)TIRING PANDEMIC : DANCE DURING THE COVID-19 CRISIS The impact of Covid-19 on the field of dance activities: What about the consequences of government restrictions in the fight against Covid-19?

In April 2020, the European Olympic Committees (EOC) concluded that “sport has the potential to make a significant contribution, paving the way for a return to normality, especially for children and young people”. From private dance schools to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, sport practices have been disrupted by the COVID-19 health crisis and are often overlooked during global discussions on the impacts of the pandemic. What about this statement by the COE nine months after the outbreak of the Covid-19 crisis in Europe and the declaration of the state of emergency in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg?

Focuses on dance activities.

December 16th, 2020

On March 18th, 2020, the Luxembourg Government declared the state of emergency in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, subsequently extended until June 24th, 2020. During this period, our lives have been put on hold to fight the new coronavirus. If summer then arrived with a breeze of fresh air and a disguised return to normality, autumn and winter made sure to push us back to reality with a drastic increase of new cases of infections and daily hospitalizations. 

The most recent measures are the ones as of the 26th of November 2020, published by law n°933. Indeed, it inhibited or even erases the “less” essential activities and leisure activities of our daily lives in order to stop the spread of the virus. Falls within the scope of these activities: going out to restaurants, cultural outings to the theatre and sports.

The law therefore provides that indoor sports facilities are closed to the public. Exceptions to this prohibition are indoor sports facilities and infrastructures which remain accessible for school and extra-curricular sports activities. These sports facilities are also accessible to people to practise physical activities on medical prescription. The National Sports remains accessible for elite athletes and senior national teams. It is then stated that “the practice of recreational activities in groups of more than four people is prohibited“.

On November 30th, 2020, in a joint missive, twelve dance schools questioned the consequences of these measures for them. De facto, if dancing can be considered as physical activity, it also falls under the definition of recreational or leisure activities and could then be held with less than four students.

In its general observations no.17 of 2013, the Okaju “Ombudsman fir Kanner a Jugendlecher Mënscherechtshaus”, defines recreational activities as “a very wide range of activities, including, among others, musical, artistic and craft activities, carried out with the community or within a club, sports, games, hiking and camping, and other hobbies”.

Thus, in a first and quite short period of time, the Ministry of Health considered that dancing fell under the definition of recreational activities and was therefore authorized for a maximum of four people. This point of view didn’t last long and dance schools, with the exception of conservatories, will quickly realize that their activities were simply forgotten by the new measures.

As the letter from the dance schools and the Luxembourg National Dance Confederation underlines, “The Ministry of Culture, as well as the Ministries of National Education and Sports have specified that” we are not part of any of the fields of which they are in charge“. Dancing is therefore neither a physical activity nor a recreational activity, but simply an economic activity which must necessarily be closed because the risk of infection could be too high. However, dance schools have all complied with barrier gestures by submitting their students to wearing masks, social distancing and a lot of disinfectant in their enclosures.

It is all the more surprising that the same dance activities can continue to be taught in Conservatories, because according to the Ministry of Health “The courses offered at the conservatory are to be considered as part of school activities and are therefore authorized”.

The Ministry of Health finally filled this legislative void by considering that “Dancing is considered a physical activity like yoga or fitness, not a recreational activity. This type of activity also has the added disadvantage that it involves close contact with your dance partner, thus multiplying the risk of contagion. As a result, this activity is prohibited.”

It is imperative to remember that in these times of crisis, despite many urgent priorities, physical activity remains essential for both physical and mental health and helps alleviate stress and anxiety. It is arguably not part of the problem, but rather part of the solution by bringing a glimmer of “normality” to the heart of the pandemic.

While the numbers of dance school registrations have fallen sharply for the first quarter of the school year 2020/2021, registrations for January will be even more tragic. In fact, law no.992 of December 15th, 2020 extended the measures currently in force initially until January 15, 2021.

If the law of November 26th left room for a certain margin of interpretation by allowing dance classes to take place with a maximum of four students and the obligation to wear a mask, the new law project that will be voted next week, does not leave any doubt as to the prohibition of dance lessons and the obligation to close dance schools. The Government Council has made the necessary changes to the bill in order to solve the ambiguities by providing in article 3bis, paragraph 2, point 2 ° that “activities of physical culture are prohibited“.

However, there are exemptions provided for in Article 4 of the new law, which allows professional artists and dancers to continue to exercise their activities. Indeed, the article provides: “the obligation of physical distancing and wearing of the mask provided for in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 does not apply (…) to theatre and film actors, to musicians, as well as to dancers who exercise a professional artistic activity”. It is thus possible for them to continue dancing for purely professional purposes.

***

The situation is very critical for private dance schools which, despite governmental economic aid, are unable to recover from the lack of enrolment in dance classes. Online courses will never replace the human-friendliness of a face-to-face course. While waiting for the pandemic to go away, the only solution will be to dance away this frustration.

THE SHADOW PANDEMIC : Violence against women during COVID-19

The COVID19 crisis phase was particularly difficult for victims of domestic violence, and in particular women and girls who are confronted with situations of abuse. The many confinement measures forced families to live closely together and resulted in increased tensions. In addition, the structures in place to rescue potential victims and the consultation centers were confronted with an increase in the requests for assistance. This shows the importance of a solid social and economic response framework that must be put in place by governments and non-governmental support agencies. 

July 16th, 2020

According to a first estimate, the Grand-Duchy has not experienced a massive increase in domestic violence in Luxembourg. On June 11th, 2020, as Luxembourg slowly moved towards deconfinement, the Minister for Equality between women and men Mme Taina Bofferding presented the numbers related to violence against women in their homes from the months of March to May 2020. 

Luxembourg’s numbers 

As such, in March 2020, 91 police interventions were made, with 26 of these interventions resulting in expulsions of the perpetrator from the family home. This number decreased in April 2020, when only 73 interventions resulted in 19 expulsions. In May 2020, the Minister’s report shows that 23 persons were asked to leave their home for a total number of 79 police interventions. 

Notwithstanding these numbers that may not have dramatically increased due to the COVID-19 related confinement measures, it was essential for the Luxemburgish government to set up measures to ensure efficient and preventive action in cases of domestic violence and allow victims to feel sheltered if in need of help. Such measures included the weekly monitoring of situations previously known to the authorities, the development of the website violence.lu directly addressed to victims of violence and the setting up of a helpline. 

On July 3rd, 2020 Minister Taina Bofferding also visited reception structures and consultation centers registered with the Ministry for Gender Equality, namely the Maison de la Porte ouverte Foundation (FMPO), the ProFamilia Foundation, Femmes en Détresse asbl (FED) and the National Council for Luxembourg Women (CNFL). The objective of this visit was to get a global image of the social work carried out by organizations and their staff for the benefit of women in situations of distress, especially during times of increased domestic violence.

Throughout the confinement and the progressive phases of deconfinement, the organizations perfectly mastered the situation and were able to continue their activities through on-site and telephone hotlines. Assistance and assistance to potential victims could be guaranteed. This on-site visit is a first step to take stock of the crisis.

UN Women Report 

The existing crisis of violence against women and girls is already showing worrying statistics worldwide, as it is assumed that in the previous twelve months, almost 18 per cent of women and girls between the age of 15 to 49 have experienced physical or sexual violence by a partner. UN Women’s report on this “shadow” pandemic addresses the economic impact of violence against women and formulates several recommendations for governments and affiliated organizations in the fight against violence. 

The report published on April 6th, 2020, recommends governments to allocate additional resources and include evidence-based measures to address violence against women and girls in COVID-19 response plans. The report further underlines the importance of the response-system at the disposal of victims of violence, such as shelters, psychological support centers and helplines. 

In order to act preventively, UN Women equally advocates to put women at the center of policy change, solutions and recovery. The building of capacity of key services to prevent impunity can only be effective if the victims themselves get to be a part of the solution. The collection of data in this regard, as presented by Luxembourg for instance, is an essential element to fully understand the impact of COVID-19 on victims of domestic violence and in the framework of violence against women and girls. This will allow governments and related organizations to structure a comprehensive response. 

* * *

Luxembourg’s government is continuously monitoring the numbers related to domestic violence and has made a first evaluation of the confinement from March to June 2020. This is to be continued in view of a potential second confinement due to the renewed increase in cases, in line with the UN Women’s recommendations.

VISITATION AND ACCOMMODATION RIGHTS: WHAT ABOUT PARENT’S RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD IN TIMES OF CONFINEMENT?

Following the declaration of the state of crisis on March 15th, 2020, there was a great deal of doubt as to the procedures for exercising access and accommodation rights for separated parents. Indeed, on March 20th, 2020, the advisory opinion of the Family Affairs Judge of the District Court of and in Luxembourg instructed parents to strictly limit the movement of children. In homes where the child’s parents live in separate residences, this has led to conflictual situations in which some parents have refused to accept or hand over the child to the other parent, thus going to the against any legal decision preceding the state of crisis.

May 7th, 2020

On April 2nd, 2020, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Mr. Fernand ETGEN, acknowledged receipt of an urgent parliamentary question to the Minister of Justice Madam Sam TANSON concerning the procedures for the exercise of visitation and accommodation rights in times of confinement and more specifically, regarding the advisory opinion issued by the Family Affairs Judge dated March 20th, 2020.

The advisory opinion of March 20th, 2020

It should be recalled that in Luxembourg, the principle is that parental authority is joint, that is to say that it is exercised jointly. The parents of the child have the same rights and obligations towards the person and the property of their child, whether they live together or whether they are separated or divorced. In the event of separation or divorce, the child’s usual residence can then be fixed with one of the two parents, the other parent then obtaining visitation and accommodation rights.

Even though the exercise of parental authority has in no way been affected by the declaration of the state of crisis, great doubts persisted in relation to the visitation and accommodation rights exercised by parents with separate residences.

These doubts seemed to have been clarified on March 20th, 2020. Indeed, the instructions received by the Family Affairs Judge indicated that parents living apart and usually sharing custody or residence are requested to strictly limit the movements of children.

Thus, the Family Judge held that it was unwise to maintain the visitation and accommodation rights agreed upon or judicially decided. The advisory opinion also stated that if the parents did not find a suitable solution, the child had to stay with the parent with whom the usual residence is located. The other parent will then be “compensated” once a return to normality is possible.

The parliamentary question of April 2nd, 2020

It is following to a letter received from the association “Fathers Against Discrimination” (hereinafter “FAD association”), dated April 1st, 2020, that the deputies Mr. Roy REDING and Mr. Fernand KARTHEISER transmitted to the President of the Chamber of Deputies a parliamentary question regarding the advisory opinion of the Family Affairs Judge of March 20th, 2020.

The FAD association is committed to equal parental rights after separation, stressing that a child should never be deprived of their natural human right to family life and equal access to both parents.

Thus, since the advisory opinion was likely to have a disproportionate impact on the rights of parents with whom the usual residence is not located, or even on the rights of the children themselves, the letter from the FAD association was given close attention and gave rise to the parliamentary question formulated on April 2nd, 2020.

Firstly, the parliamentary question asked the Minister of Justice to confirm the existence of an advisory opinion.

Secondly, it asked the Minister of Justice to assess the procedural value of this opinion, in particular in relation to compliance with legal decisions preceding the state of crisis, in relation to the rights of the child and its parents, as well as its compatibility with Article 1 of the     grand-ducal regulation of March 20th, 2020 which authorized travel for the exercise of visitation and accommodation rights.

Finally, the parliamentary question asked more generally what the current Luxembourg government intends to do in order to ensure respect for visitation and accommodation rights, even in times of confinement.

Statement by Minister Sam TANSON

While it would be possible to consider that the opinion of March 20th, 2020 would go against government directives as suggested by the FAD association, the response of the Minister of Justice was limited to legal references in case of an emerging dispute between separated parents.

The Minister thus confirmed the existence of this opinion, but did not comment on the approach of the Family Affairs Judge referencing the independence of the judiciary.

In her response to the honorable deputies REDING and KARTHEISER, the Minister of Justice confirmed that the grand-ducal regulation of March 18th, 2020, as modified by the grand-ducal regulation of March 20th, 2020, maintains that any travel necessary for the exercise of the visitation and accommodation rights as fixed by agreement between the parties or by a judicial decision is permitted.

In addition, the Minister indicated that a specific interim procedure has been established in order to resolve emergency situations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This procedure is codified in Article 4 of the grand-ducal regulation of 17 April 2020 relating to the holding of public hearings during the state of crisis before the courts in cases subject to the written procedure and relating to the temporary adaptation of the procedure for exceptional proceedings before the Family Affairs Judge. Thus, if disagreements between parents regarding the exercise of the visitation and accommodation rights meet the criteria of Article 4 of the grand-ducal regulation of April 17th, 2020, these disputes can be resolved quickly through the exceptional interim proceedings. 

More precisely, in accordance with the aforementioned Article 4, during the state of crisis and derogating from Article 1007-11 paragraph 1 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, the request to obtain interim measures referred to in Article 1007-11 may be introduced in the absence of a referral to the Family Affairs Judge by an application on its merits, and by electronic means. The measures ordered by the Family Judge in this regard will automatically end two months after the end of the state of crisis, without prejudice to article 1007-11, paragraph 6, of the New Code of Civil Procedure.

* * *

The parliamentary questions relating to the impact of the advisory opinion on the rights of parents and children will therefore remain unanswered, but the necessary government measures are in place to ensure full respect of visitation and accommodation rights.

RISE IN CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CLAIMS FOR DIVORCE IN CONTAINMENT PERIOD IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG?

A certain number of individuals (men and women) suffer in their couples or their families from such tensions that cohabitation becomes difficult and that it is likely for differences to escalate and transform into physical abuse.

As necessary as confinement is for public health, does it appear as a factor increasing tensions within the couple, likely to lead to an increase in domestic violence and more generally in divorce applications?

May 4th, 2020

A numerical overview:

According to STATEC data, from 2016 to 2018 the divorce rate remained stable around 63% in Luxembourg. However, it rose in 2019 to a significant figure of 98%, so that out of 10 marriages celebrated in one year, there are the equivalent of 10 divorces pronounced the same year.

Victim support organizations have recently noted that cases of domestic violence tend to increase in situations such as the health crisis, so that there is reason to worry about a corresponding increase in measures of expulsion as well as a rise in marital conflicts favouring the dissolution of marriage.

Practical findings:

During the confinement period, the Law Firm Real Avocats à la Cour did indeed observe a relative increase in domestic violence leading to expulsion measures, but also an increase in divorce petitions.

In this health crisis, it should be noted that social differences and inequalities have increased and that in particular disadvantaged families, who are confined in small apartments, where several people live, are in a situation very different from that of families who coexist in spacious houses with gardens.

Thus, if for some, marriage was already in crisis before quarantine, the restrictive pandemic measures undoubtedly accentuated the decision to dissolve marriage, while, for others, the health crisis contributed to the increase of conflict existing within the couple.

Brief overview of the current procedure in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in matters of domestic violence: 

The amended law of 8 September 2003 on domestic violence (hereinafter “the Law”) created a framework for the protection of victims of domestic violence throughout the country and a Cooperation Committee for professionals in the field of the fight against violence, responsible for providing an annual report to the Government on the matter. 

In accordance with the law, within the framework of their missions of crime prevention and protection of persons, the police, with the authorization of the State prosecutor, can evict from their home and its dependences, the persons against whom there are indications that they are preparing to commit with respect to a person with whom they cohabit in a family environment, an offense against life or physical integrity, or that they are preparing to commit such acts again with regard to a person who had already fallen a victim to domestic violence by the same author.

 As a result of this expulsion, the perpetrator no longer has the right to enter the home and its dependencies, to make contact with the protected person, orally, in writing or through a proxy, nor does the perpetrator have the right to approach them. It is for the police to verify compliance with these prohibitions.  

The expulsion measure, initially ordered, automatically ends at 5:00 p.m. on the 14th day following that of its entry into force, unless the protected person has filed, within this period, a request for extension according to the formalities provided for in the Article 1017-2 of the New Code of Civil Procedure. 

Under Article 1017-1 (1) of the New Code of Civil Procedure, the protected person has the possibility, by simple request, to ask the president of the District Court to pronounce against the author a ban to return home for a maximum period of three months following the expiration of the expulsion order, without regard to any real or personal rights of the author in relation to the home.   

In the event of non-compliance with the prohibition measures to which the author is subject, he is liable to the criminal sanctions of Article 439 of the Criminal Code, namely imprisonment from six months to two years and / or a fine from EUR 251.00.- (two hundred and fifty-one euros) to EUR 3.000,00.- (three thousand euros).


Unlike its neighbors, Luxembourg has not yet taken extraordinary measures to help the victims. The measures in force at the moment are therefore those laid down in the Law: namely the expulsion of the author, the care of victims by the SAVVD (Service for assistance to victims of domestic violence) and the service of assistance for children, as well as the “Riicht Eraus” service of the Luxembourg Red Cross which helps perpetrators of violence. 

A helpline under the number 2060 1060 works for victims of domestic violence (women and men) in order to respond to the projected increase in domestic violence in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. 

The “Riicht Eraus” service has opened a hotline under the number 2755 5800. 

Finally, it should be noted that the legislator was particularly keen, despite the particular circumstances linked to the health crisis, to preserve, in favour of the victims, the protective measures established within the framework of the Law relating to this sensitive matter of violence  within a marriage, unlike the evictions operated within the framework of leases. 

Indeed, in accordance with article 5 of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of March 25th, 2020 suspending the time limits in jurisdictional matter and temporary adaptation of certain other procedural modalities, “the ordered evictions in matters of residential lease and leasehold for commercial use are suspended ”. Thus, it is clear that the eviction procedure provided for by the amended law of September 8th, 2003 on domestic violence retains all its effectiveness and applicability despite the current health crisis. 

* * *

To find out if the period of confinement really had an impact on the acts of domestic violence and the dissolution of marriage during this period of confinement, it will take some time to allow the necessary hindsight to establish the statistical data on the matter.

VISITATION RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF A NATION-WIDE LOCKDOWN

The state of emergency has been declared, the schools will remain closed for an indefinite period of time, nothing continues “as usual”. What does this imply for separated parents?

March 27th, 2020

The state of emergency was declared by a grand-ducal regulation dated March 18th, 2020 and limits any movement outside of home. What about separated parents? Are visitation rights and alternate residence exercised as usual?

It is important to differentiate between parental authority and the residence of common children or possible visiting and accommodation rights, the legal rules of which are codified by the law of 27 June 2018 establishing the judge for family affairs, reforming divorce and parental authority.

Parental authority

Parental authority is the set of rights and obligations with regard to the person of a minor, which belongs to each of the child’s parents and which last until majority of the child or his emancipation. The majority is fixed at the age of 18 in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

The principle is that parental authority is joint, that is to say that it is exercised in common. The parents of the child have the same rights and obligations towards their child, whether they live together or are separated or divorced. The separation or divorce of the parents does not change the conditions for the exercise of parental authority, which continues to be exercised jointly by the two parents in principle.

The exercise of parental authority is in no way affected by the current state of emergency or any other government measure taken in the context of the extraordinary situation caused by COVID-19.

Alternate residence or visitation and accommodation rights

However, when the parents have separate residences, sometimes beyond the borders of the Grand Duchy, the numerous declarations made in regard to the state of emergency and the ban on any movement outside of home can be confusing.

It should be recalled that, in the event of separation, the parents can agree on the residence of the common children, alternated or not, as well as the visitation and accommodation rights possibly granted to one or the other parent.

If no agreement between parents is possible, the judge will then have made a decision in the best interests of the child and have fixed the child’s home with one of the parents. It is then possible that the residence is either alternate, or that one parent receives visitation and accommodation rights. It is important to note that alternate residence does not necessarily impose a strictly equal sharing of the child’s residence time at the home of each parent.

Following the instructions received by the Judge on Family Affairs of the Luxembourg District Court on Friday, March 20th, 2020, parents living separately with one or more common children with shared custody or residence are asked to strictly limit the movement of children.

Thus, the Judge on Family Affairs considers that it is unwise to maintain the repetitive access rights agreed or judicially decided. We must, while keeping the best interests of the child at the center of all decisions, above all seek to minimize the passing of arms over the coming weeks. This means that it is quite possible to maintain four weeks with only one of the two parents, by encouraging Facetime or Skype contacts for example. The Judge on Family Affairs encourages parents to find an agreement that limits the child’s movement as much as possible, in the awareness that custody of a child in the current context is far from being an easy task. 


If the parents cannot find a suitable solution, the child must stay with the parent with whom the usual residence is located. The other parent will then be “compensated” once a return to normality is possible. 

If the parents exercise alternate residence, it is now to be exercised in blocks of two weeks. 

Any surrender of the child beyond the borders of Luxembourg is to be assessed individually and to be considered with great reservations. The Judge on Family Affairs considers that the return of the child is not guaranteed and advises separated parents to suspend all transportation of the child beyond the borders until the crisis settles down. 

In addition, it follows from the instructions of the Luxembourg government but also from the opinion of the Judge on Family Affairs that all visits to a public place or in the presence of a third party are imperatively suspended. 

The grand-ducal regulation of March 18th, 2020, as modified by the grand-ducal regulation of March 20th, 2020 maintains that any travel necessary for the exercise of visitation and accommodation rights as well as the exercise of alternate residence arrangements, as agreed upon between the parties or by court order, is permitted.

* * *

This article is a reflection of the opinion issued by the Judge on Family Affairs of the Luxembourg District Court on Friday, March 20th, 2020, as well as the information published by the Ministry of Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

SUPPORT MEASURES FOR COMPANIES DURING THE CONTAINMENT PERIOD

Le gouvernement luxembourgeois a pris de nombreuses mesures en vue de contenir la propagation du COVID-19 et a décrété l’état d’urgence. Que cela signifie-t’il pour vous ?

26 mars 2020

La liberté de circulation est une pierre angulaire de l’Union européenne et fait partie intégrante de notre mode de vie. Cependant, la situation actuelle impose de grandes restrictions et a un impact sévère non seulement sur le tourisme mais également sur ceux qui souhaitent à l’heure actuelle obtenir un type de permis de séjour plus permanent au Luxembourg.

Comment le droit de l’immigration au Grand-Duché est-il affecté par les nouvelles règles et réglementations?

Le 18 mars 2020, l’état d’urgence a été déclaré au Luxembourg. L’intention de proclamer l’état d’urgence avait été annoncée par le Premier ministre Xavier Bettel dans son discours au Parlement prononcé un jour plus tôt.

En effet, en cas de crise internationale, le Grand-Duc peut édicter des réglementations sur tout sujet, voire déroger aux dispositions légales existantes. La durée de validité de ce règlement est limitée à trois mois. Ceci est codifié à l’article 32-4 de la Constitution luxembourgeoise. Le champ d’action couvert par cet article est limité aux mesures qui ne peuvent pas être prises en temps utile via la procédure législative normale. La Chambre peut à tout moment suspendre ou révoquer l’état de crise: le contrôle parlementaire est ainsi pleinement garanti.

Au moment de la rédaction, ce règlement est donc valable jusqu’au 18 juin 2020 et a été modifié par un règlement grand-ducal édicté le 20 mars 2020. Ces modifications n’affectent cependant pas le droit de l’immigration.

Le règlement du 18 mars 2020 porte sur la délivrance de nouvelles autorisations de séjour, la validité des visas et permis existants, ainsi que la liberté de circulation à l’intérieur et à travers le Luxembourg.

Pour ceux qui se trouvent au Luxembourg et détiennent un visa ou un titre de séjour :

Par dérogation à la loi modifiée du 29 août 2008 sur la libre circulation des personnes et l’immigration, la durée de validité des visas, des titres de séjour temporaires, des titres de séjour et des titres de séjour, qui expirent après le 1er mars 2020, est prorogée pour la durée de l’état de crise.

Pour ceux qui se trouvent au Luxembourg et qui ne sont pas titulaires d’un visa :

Le séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers qui ne sont pas soumis à l’obligation de visa et dont le séjour vient de dépasser 90 jours est régulier pendant la durée de l’état de crise.

Pour les demandeurs d’asile qui se trouvent au Luxembourg :

Par dérogation à la loi du 18 décembre 2015 sur la protection internationale et la protection temporaire, le certificat reçu lors du dépôt d’une demande de protection internationale qui est expiré ou expirera pendant l’état de crise est prolongé pour la durée de l’état de crise.

Il convient de souligner que les mesures susmentionnées sont automatiques et que les personnes concernées ne doivent prendre aucune mesure ni formuler aucune demande spécifique afin d’en obtenir le bénéfice 

La Direction de l’immigration ne délivre pas de document certifiant cette prolongation temporaire.

Enfin, la Direction de l’immigration a informé les citoyens qu’il n’est actuellement pas possible de déposer des fichiers et des documents. Il est demandé d’envoyer toute pièce par courrier. De plus, toutes les billetteries resteront fermées jusqu’à nouvel ordre.

* * *

Il est important de noter que tous les ressortissants de pays tiers ne peuvent plus entrer sur le territoire du Grand-Duché à partir du 18 mars 2020 à 18 heures. pour une durée d’un mois renouvelable, soit jusqu’au 18 avril 2020 au moment de la rédaction.

À ce titre, les citoyens de l’Union européenne, du Royaume-Uni, des pays associés à l’espace Schengen et les membres de leur famille, dans le but de rentrer chez eux, sont exemptés des restrictions de voyage temporaires.

En outre, les catégories suivantes de ressortissants de pays tiers peuvent déroger aux restrictions de voyage temporaires: (1) les ressortissants de pays tiers qui détiennent le statut de résident de longue durée conformément à la directive européenne 2003/109 / CE sur les résidents de longue durée, ainsi que toute autre personne ayant un droit de séjour conformément aux directives européennes et en vertu du droit national au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg ou dans l’un des pays voisins; (2) les professionnels de la santé, les chercheurs en santé et les professionnels des soins aux personnes âgées; (3) les travailleurs et employés transfrontaliers; (4) les personnes employées dans le secteur du transport de marchandises et les autres personnes employées dans le secteur du transport de marchandises et de personnes, y compris le personnel des compagnies aériennes; 5) les membres du corps diplomatique, le personnel d’organisations internationales, les militaires, le personnel dans le domaine de la coopération au développement et de l’aide humanitaire, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions respectives; (6) passagers en transit; (7) les passagers voyageant pour des raisons familiales urgentes et dûment justifiées; (8) les personnes souhaitant solliciter une protection internationale ou subsidiaire au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg ou pour d’autres raisons humanitaires.

* * *

IMMIGRATION LAW : WHAT ABOUT COVID-19 ?

The Government of Luxembourg has taken numerous measures in view of containing the spread of COVID-19 and declared the state of emergency. What does this mean for you? 

26th March 2020

Freedom of movement is a cornerstone of the European Union and an integral part of our way of life. However, the current situation imposes great restrictions and has a harsh impact on not only travelling for tourists but also on those who wish to seek a more permanent type of residence permit in Luxembourg at the current time. 

How is immigration law in the Grand-Duchy affected by the new rules and regulations? 

On March 18th, 2020 the state of emergency was declared in Luxembourg. The intention to declare the state of emergency had been announced by the Prime Minister Xavier Bettel in his address to Parliament held one day earlier. 

Indeed, in the event of an international crisis, the Grand Duke may, if there is an emergency, make regulations on any matter, even derogations from existing legal provisions. The period of validity of these regulations is limited to three months. This is codified in Article 32-4 of the Luxembourg Constitution. The scope of action covered by this article is limited to measures which cannot be taken in good time via the normal legislative procedure. The Chamber can at any time suspend or revoke the state of crisis: parliamentary control is thus fully guaranteed.

At the time of writing, this regulation is thus valid until June 18th, 2020 and has been modified by a Grand-Ducal regulation issued on March 20th, 2020. However these modifications do not affect immigration law. 

The Regulation issued on March 18th, 2020 deals with the delivery of new authorizations of stay, the validity of existing visa and permits, as well as the freedom of movement within and through Luxembourg. 

For those who hold a visa or a residence permit and are currently in Luxembourg :

By way of derogation from the amended law of 29 August 2008 on the free movement of persons and immigration, the period of validity for visas, temporary residence permits, residence permits and residence permits, which expire after March 1, 2020, is extended for the duration of the state of crisis.

For third-country nationals who do not hold a visa and are currently in Luxembourg : 

The stay of third-country nationals who are not subject to the visa requirement and whose stay has just exceeded 90 days is regular for the duration of the state of crisis.

For those who seek international protection and are currently in Luxembourg :

By way of derogation from the law of 18 December 2015 on international protection and temporary protection, the certificate received upon filing a request for international protection also called an asylum request that has or will expire is extended for the duration of the state of crisis.

It should be emphasized that the aforementioned measures are automatic and that the persons concerned must not take any steps or make any specific requests.

The Immigration Directorate does not issue a document certifying this temporary extension. 
Finally, the Directorate of Immigration informed citizens that it is currently not possible to deposit files and documents by hand. It is requested to send any part by mail. In addition, all ticket offices will remain closed until further notice.

* * *

It is important to note that all third-country nationals may no longer enter the territory of the Grand Duchy from March 18th, 2020 at 6 p.m. for a period of one month renewable, that is to say until April 18th, 2020 at the time of writing. 

As such, citizens of the European Union, the United Kingdom, countries associated with the Schengen area, and members of their families, for the purpose of returning to their homes, are exempt from temporary travel restrictions. 

In addition, the following categories of third-country nationals may derogate from the temporary travel restrictions : (1) third-country nationals who hold long-term resident status in accordance with European Directive 2003/109 / EC on long-term residents, as well as any other person with a right of residence in accordance with European directives as well as under national law in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or one of the neighboring countries ; (2) health professionals, health researchers and care professionals for the elderly ;  (3) cross-border workers and employees ; (4) persons employed in the goods transport sector and other persons employed in the transport of goods and persons sector, including airline personnel ; (5) members of the diplomatic corps, personnel of international organizations, the military, personnel in the field of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, during the exercise of their respective functions ; (6) passengers in transit ; (7) passengers traveling for urgent and duly justified family reasons; (8) persons wishing to apply for international protection or subsidiary protection in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or for other humanitarian reasons.

* * *

An evolving legal framework regarding the use of cannabis in Luxembourg : towards a possible legalisation of recreational cannabis to the same extent as therapeutic cannabis ?

ARTICLE

REAL, Avocats à la Cour

 

Luxembourg is one of the first countries in Europe to have recently adopted a law aiming to authorize the use of cannabis for medical purposes, with the aim to reduce the pain and suffering from certain patients.

 

The law of July 20th 2018 modifying the law of February 19th 1973 on the sale of medical substances and the fight against substance abuse decriminalized the use of hemp (cannabis) or any products derived from the same plant if such use was prescribed and obtained for medical purposes.

 

The new article 30-2 of the aforementioned law foresees that « every doctor authorized to exercise his or her profession in Luxembourg is authorized to prescribe medicinal cannabis to a patient if the following conditions are fulfilled :

  1. The patient must suffer from a severe illness in an advanced or terminal face, or from an illness whose symptoms have a prolonged negative impact on his or her quality of life if those symptoms can be minimized through the administration of medicinal cannabis,
  2. The doctor must have previously undergone special training on cannabis pharmacology, its various forms, therapeutic indications and side effects, as well as on the modalities and scientific aspects of its prescription ».

 

Three months after the introduction of medical cannabis, Luxembourg’s Health Minister Etienne Schneider outlined that over 120 patients had been treated through the use and prescription of this substance.

 

Furthermore, the Luxembourgish Government announced in its coalition agreement of December 2018 that a wider legislation on the use of cannabis for recreational purposes could be adopted.

 

Concerning this matter, a petition on the recreational use of cannabis demanded, in addition to the law allowing such use, that coffee shops be opened where customers would be free to legally consume cannabis as it is currently practiced in the Netherlands.

 

If such a legislation were to be passed, Luxembourg would be the first country in Europe to legalize this substance in its entirety through a legally coherent framework.

 

The principal objectives of the coalition agreement are to decriminalize, or even to legalize under conditions that remain yet to be determined, the production, the sale, the possession and the recreational use of cannabis on national territory for adult residents. It equally aims to reduce the market pertaining to illicit trade and the psychological and physical dangers linked to such trade. The fight against crime related to the illegal supplying of cannabis is amongst the highest priorities of the Government.

 

The Government announced its intention to introduce a « residential clause » in the new law, exclusively allowing the selling of cannabis to residents and thereby suggesting that the use of recreational cannabis would be reserved to residents too.

 

As the law on legalizing the use of cannabis is currently being drafted, only the future will tell if Luxembourg is to follow the example set by Canada, who legalized the cultivation, sale and use of cannabis in October 2018.