In keeping with our commitment to transparency, we would have preferred to publish the complete legal proceedings of this case. However, on advice of counsel, we are unable to do so at this time. This limitation stems from both procedural considerations and professional courtesies within Luxembourg’s legal community.
As a result, we have chosen to present a substantive analysis of the key arguments and principles at stake, while respecting the confidentiality of the formal legal submissions. We believe this approach allows us to contribute meaningfully to the public debate about administrative transparency while adhering to appropriate legal and professional boundaries.
We remain committed to sharing as much information as we legally can about this important case as it progresses through the courts.

At ZUG (Zentrum fir Urban Gerechtegkeet), we began with a simple mission: make our city’s pedestrian crossings safer through data-driven citizen science. However, our quest for safer streets has evolved into a landmark legal battle over government transparency that could have far-reaching implications for administrative openness in Luxembourg.

The Journey So Far

In 2021, our “Safe Crossing” project identified potential safety issues at numerous pedestrian crossings in Luxembourg City. When we published our findings, the City’s response was interesting: they claimed our analysis was wrong, citing their own internal assessment that supposedly proved only 32-37 crossings needed further examination.

This led us to file a freedom of information request for:

• The City’s analysis of our findings
• Their technical note about pedestrian safety
• Access to the geographic database containing information about roads, sidewalks, and parking spaces

We won the initial case before the Administrative Tribunal. However, the City has now appealed, advancing arguments that, if accepted, could fundamentally alter how administrative transparency works in Luxembourg.

The City’s Vision: A Return to Administrative Opacity

The City’s appeal presents a concerning vision of administrative functioning that would effectively turn back the clock on transparency. Let’s break down their main arguments:

1. The “Right to Draft” Argument: Protection Without Overreach

While the City claims they need absolute protection for internal documents, this argument ignores key protections already built into the transparency law. For instance, the law explicitly allows for personal information to be redacted – no civil servant’s name would ever need to be published. This makes the City’s concern about protecting their staff from public scrutiny a moot point. The law already provides this protection through simple redaction.

2. The Administrative Burden: A Question of Will, Not Capability

The City’s claim that transparency would create an unbearable administrative burden doesn’t stand up to international comparison. Countries across Europe, many with far fewer civil servants per capita than Luxembourg, have successfully implemented similar or even stronger freedom of information laws. Their administrations haven’t ground to a halt – they’ve adapted and thrived. If they can manage, why can’t we?

Moreover, the transparency law has been in place since 2018 – and was voted for by our current Mayor herself. The City has had over five years to put procedures and technical means in place to comply with this legislation. It’s not citizens’ fault if the City hasn’t prepared itself to implement a law it knew was coming.

3. The Confidentiality Question: Protecting Process While Ensuring Accountability

The City’s argument about closed meetings misses a crucial distinction: while the law protects the confidentiality of the deliberative process itself (the meetings), it doesn’t extend this protection to the entirety of administrative decision-making. The outcomes and bases for decisions must remain transparent. This balance protects frank discussion while ensuring accountability.

4. The “Technical Impossibility” Defense

The City claims it’s technically too complex to share their geographic database. Yet, they already export similar data for other purposes, and cities across Europe routinely publish such information. Berlin, for instance, publishes its entire street lighting database online.

Our Counter-Vision: Modern, Open Administration

Our response to the City’s appeal defends a different vision of public administration – one aligned with modern democratic principles and technological capabilities:

1. No Having It Both Ways

We argue that when officials publicly cite internal analyses to reject citizen concerns (as the City did with our pedestrian crossing study), they can’t then claim these analyses are too sensitive to share. The public has a right to verify the facts behind administrative decisions.

2. Technical Reality Check

We’ve demonstrated that the City’s technical arguments don’t hold water. Modern geographic information systems are designed for data sharing, and the City already has the capability to export the relevant data – they do it regularly for other purposes.

3. Legal Clarity

The 2018 law on transparent administration deliberately established openness as the principle and secrecy as the exception. We argue that the City’s interpretation would effectively reverse this hierarchy, contrary to both the law’s letter and spirit.

4. European Standards

We’ve highlighted how Luxembourg has been criticized in EU State of Law reports for its somewhat restrictive approach to administrative transparency. The City’s position would worsen this situation, moving us further from European best practices.

Why This Matters: Democracy, Trust, and Accountability

This case goes far beyond technical questions of database access or document sharing. It strikes at the heart of democratic governance and accountability. At a time when Luxembourg is slipping in transparency rankings and press freedom indices, and when government distrust is rising globally, these issues become even more crucial. The handling of public information directly impacts how citizens trust their institutions and how taxpayer money is managed.

Consider this real example: Our Mayor repeatedly claimed that 87% of Luxembourg City’s streets have a 30km/h speed limit. Only after being fact-checked by ZUG – using freedom of information requests – did she have to publicly admit on RTL that the actual number is in the 50% range. This illustrates why access to information matters: it allows citizens to verify claims made by their elected officials and ensure accountability.

This is exactly how populism and corruption begin to take root – when administrations resist transparency and accountability becomes impossible. By fighting these battles now, we’re helping prevent larger democratic deficits in the future.

The Path Forward

The solution isn’t complicated – it requires political will and proper organization. Many cities worldwide have shown that transparent administration is not just possible but beneficial. It builds trust, improves governance, and ultimately leads to better decisions for citizens.

We believe Luxembourg City can and should be a leader in administrative transparency. Instead of fighting against disclosure, we should be working together to build systems and processes that make transparency the default – not the exception.