Luxembourg, March 3 2025 – In November 2024, our Safe Crossing project, which exposed serious shortcomings in Luxembourg’s traffic infrastructure, achieved a significant legal victory. The court decided that the City of Luxembourg must publish critical documents requested by ZUG. That win was widely reported and celebrated as a milestone in the fight for access to information and transparency on pedestrian safety. However, the City of Luxembourg has filed an appeal aimed at undermining the very Transparency Law that guarantees citizens access to public information—a law critical to holding administrations accountable.

Our open letter to NGOs and journalists, which details this struggle, reminds us all that the fight is not over. The appeal represents the final legal round of our battle. While we condemn this new challenge, we are prepared to defend not only the safety of our streets but also the fundamental right to freedom of information.

Why This Matters:

• Pedestrian Safety: Our Safe Crossing project has made visible the gaps in the city’s design of pedestrian crossings—gaps that risk costing lives and quality of urban life.
• Freedom of Information: The Transparency Law is a cornerstone for accountability in public administration. The appeal threatens to erode this vital right and set a dangerous precedent.

Call to Action:

• Donate to the cause: We urgently need to raise an additional €5,000 to cover the legal expenses for this final round. Please support our fight by donating at zug.lu/donate
• Court Date & Supporter Meetup: Mark your calendars for April 24, 2025—this is our next court date and the day of our supporter meetup, where we will provide further details on our strategy and progress.

We call on journalists and NGOs to remind the public of our story—of how we fought and won for safer pedestrian crossings and continue our battle to safeguard freedom of information in Luxembourg. By sharing our message, you help ensure that transparency and public accountability remain at the heart of our democracy.

ZUG geht in die letzte juristische Runde für Fußgängersicherheit und Informationsfreiheit

Luxemburg, 3. März 2025 – Im November 2024 errang unser Projekt „Safe Crossing“, das schwerwiegende Mängel in der Verkehrsinfrastruktur Luxemburgs aufgedeckt hat, einen bedeutenden juristischen Sieg. Das Gericht entschied, dass die Stadt Luxemburg kritische Dokumente veröffentlichen muss, die vom ZUG angefordert wurden. Dieser Sieg wurde weithin als Meilenstein im Kampf für den Zugang zu Informationen und Transparenz im Bereich der Fußgängersicherheit gefeiert. Die Stadt Luxemburg hat jedoch Berufung eingelegt, um genau das Transparenzgesetz zu untergraben, das den Bürgern den Zugang zu öffentlichen Informationen garantiert – ein Gesetz, das für die Rechenschaftspflicht der Verwaltungen von entscheidender Bedeutung ist.

Unser offener Brief an NPOs und Journalisten, in dem dieser Kampf ausführlich beschrieben wird, erinnert uns alle daran, dass der Kampf noch nicht vorbei ist. Die Berufung stellt die letzte juristische Runde unseres Kampfes dar. Wir verurteilen diese neue Herausforderung, sind aber bereit, nicht nur die Sicherheit unserer Straßen, sondern auch das Grundrecht auf Informationsfreiheit zu verteidigen.

Warum das wichtig ist:

• Fußgängersicherheit: Unser Projekt „Safe Crossing“ hat Lücken in der Gestaltung der Fußgängerüberwege in der Stadt sichtbar gemacht – Lücken, die Leben kosten und die Lebensqualität in der Stadt beeinträchtigen können.
• Informationsfreiheit: Das Transparenzgesetz ist ein Eckpfeiler für die Rechenschaftspflicht in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. Der Einspruch droht, dieses lebenswichtige Recht auszuhöhlen und einen gefährlichen Präzedenzfall zu schaffen.

Aufruf zum Handeln:

• Spenden Sie für die Sache: Wir müssen dringend weitere 5.000 € aufbringen, um die Rechtskosten für diese letzte Runde zu decken. Bitte unterstützen Sie unseren Kampf, indem Sie auf zug.lu/donate spenden
• Gerichtstermin und Unterstützertreffen: Notieren Sie sich den 24. April 2025 in Ihrem Kalender – dies ist unser nächster Gerichtstermin und der Tag unseres Unterstützertreffens, an dem wir weitere Einzelheiten zu unserer Strategie und unseren Fortschritten bekanntgeben werden.

Wir rufen Journalisten und NGOs auf, die Öffentlichkeit an unsere Geschichte zu erinnern – daran, wie wir für sicherere Fußgängerüberwege gekämpft und gewonnen haben und unseren Kampf für den Schutz der Informationsfreiheit in Luxemburg fortsetzen. Indem Sie unsere Botschaft verbreiten, tragen Sie dazu bei, dass Transparenz und öffentliche Rechenschaftspflicht im Mittelpunkt unserer Demokratie stehen.

Für weitere Informationen wenden Sie sich bitte an: info@zug.lu

Honestly, we never thought we’d be writing this. Back in November, our Safe Crossing project scored a major win for pedestrian safety—proving that when you demand transparency, you get it. We fought, we won, and we celebrated. But now? They’re appealing our victory. Yes, you read that right—we’re heading into round two, and we’re as shocked as you are.

This isn’t just about pedestrian crossings anymore. The appeal is a blatant attack on our (and your) right to know—an attack on the very transparency law that empowers us all. It forced our hand, shifting our fight from safe streets to defending civil rights. We never planned for an appeal, and frankly, our case was crystal clear. Yet here we are, gearing up for a final legal showdown.

To cover the costs of this next phase, we need to raise an additional €5,000. This funding will go directly toward legal fees, marketing, technology, hosting, and everything that keeps our fight alive.

The work of ZUG members and contributors is unpaid (Benevolat). Donations only go towards unavoidable expenses; the vast majority goes to legal fees (more than 99%).

So, how did we get here? With a mix of determination, the unwavering power of the law, and the audacity of a city that clearly thinks it can silence transparency. Now is the time to rally together.

Join us in this final push:
Your donation makes a tangible difference in keeping our public institutions accountable. Every euro you contribute not only fuels our legal battle but also defends the right of every citizen to know what’s going on.

Together, let’s show them that transparency isn’t just a buzzword—it’s a non-negotiable right. Thank you for standing with us in this unexpected yet critical battle.

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.

Die deutsche Übersetzung lesen
Lire la traduction française
Read the english translation

Léiw*en Responsable*n von enger ONG,
Léiw*en Journalist*in,

Eise bekanntste Projet, de Safe Crossing, huet Problemer mat der Verkéiersinfrastruktur siichtbar gemaach. Nodeems d’Stad Lëtzebuerg behaapt huet, mir géinge falsch leien, hu mir hier Donnée gefrot. Dat gouf refuséiert; mir hunn dogéint geklot a gewonn. De ganzen Drama ass hei ze liesen. Dorëms geet et haut net nëmmen.

D’Transparenzgesetz (Loi du 14 septembre 2018 relative à une administration transparente et ouverte), eis national Transpositioun vun der EU-Direktiv 2013/37/UE, ass e Kär vun eiser, a vläit och ärer Aarbecht. Et seet, dass mir e Recht hunn, Dokumenter vun enger Administratioun schrëftlech ze kréien. Natierlech ginn et Ausnamen – zum Beispill fir privat Informatiounen. Et ass logesch dass esou e Gesetz existéiert, well Administratiounen déngen de Bierger*innen. Et ass gutt, dass et Aschränkunge ginn, well net all Informatioun soll ëffentlech sinn.

Mir hunn dat Gesetz genotzt, fir eise Projet zur Verbesserung vun de Foussgängeriwwergäng ze finaliséieren. Wat geschitt ass, ass erschreckend, an dierf net iwwersi ginn:

D’CAD gëtt ignoréiert

Fir dass dat Gesetz kann effektiv schaffen, a fir de Fall vun engem Sträit, gëtt et eng onofhängeg Kommissioun – d’CAD – déi dem Premierminister ënnersteet, mat Représentante vum Premier, der Justice, der CNPD, de stiedeschen Syndkater a Syvicol an dem SIP. Dës Kommissioun kann zu Fäll, wou eng Administratioun “nee” zu enger Ufro seet, geruff gi fir als Ombudsstell eng objektiv Meenung ze ginn. Dack seet d’CAD, dass eng Administratioun en Dokument verëffentleche misst.

Dass Administratiounen d’Meenung vun der CAD ignoréieren ass zwar legal an der Rei – d’CAD ass kee Geriicht – mä eng demokratesch Katastroph. D’CAD ass net besonnesch liberal, mä decidéiert streng, an huet och de Bien vun den den Administratiounen en vue. Wann mir d’CAD hunn, déi an engem Gesetz definéiert gouf wat (ënner anerem vun der Buergermeeschtesch a vu Schäffe vun der Stad Lëtzebuerg), an der Chamber gestëmmt gouf, firwat gëtt si ignoréiert?

Dat ass besonnesch kriddeleg well d’CAD déi lescht Instanz ass fir Bierger*innen, ONGen a Journalist*innen, hiert Recht ze kréien, ouni opwänneg, deier a laang Prozesser unzefänken.

En Ignoréiere vun der CAD ass e Schlag géint eis eege Gesetzer a géint all Mënsch oder Organisatioun, déi begrenzt Ressourcen hunn.

Den ëffentlechen Discours gëtt komplett verdréint

Eise Fall gouf am Gemengerot vun der Stad Lëtzebuerg diskutéiert. D’Argumenter vum Refus vun der Stad Lëtzebuerg loossen sech esou zesummefaassen:

• Wann eis Beamte mussen am Wësse schaffen, dass hiert Handelen an hier Kommunikatioun ëffentlech gëtt, da kënnen a wäerten si net schaffen
• D’Informatioune sinn eng Gefor fir d’Sécherheet
• Mir hunn d’Leit vun ZUG ni ëm hier Meenung gefrot

Des Argumenter sinn all invalid Feelschlëss. Informatioun mam Argument “Terrorgefor” ze verweigeren ass opportunistesch an onwierdeg. Ze behaapten, dass een net ka schaffen, wann et muss transparent sinn, ass net nëmme schlechte Wëlle mä e Verrot un eisem demokratesche System. Dobäi ass eng richteg Biergerbedeelegung net méiglech, wann d’Verwaltungen de Kader bestëmmen. Leider ass eise Fall net isoléiert.

Et gëtt kee Blat méi virun de Mond geholl

De Combel vun dësem Theater ass, am Resumé vun der Buergermeeschtesch, ze soen dat wann den Appel och vun eis gewonn gëtt, da

„muss et eeben och vläicht um legislative Plang da gekläert ginn”

(Lydie Polfer, Minutt 29 vun der Diskussioun iwwert den Appel)

Mir liesen dat esou, dass d’Buergermeeschtesch seet dass, wann d’Geriicht eis Recht gëtt, ebe muss d’Gesetz geännert ginn. Esou eng Ausso, besonnesch vun enger Volleksvertriederin, entsprécht net nëmmen engem Mëssverständnis vun EU-Direktiven, mä och net enger gesonder Virstellung vun eiser Demokratie. Et gëtt am ëffentlechen Discours ëmmer erëm d’Iddi dass d’Politik mécht, wat se wëllt. Dësen Discours ass dack iwwerzunn, an dack net wouer. Wann awer eng Volleksvertriederin esou ongenéiert seet, dass Gesetzer dann ebe mussen no hirem Wëlle passend gemaach ginn, dann ënnergruewt dat de Fonctionnement vun der demokratescher Gronduerdnung an d’Vertraue vum Vollek – wat och ëmmer dat ass – an d’Politik.

Boff jo, an elo?

Et ass wichteg, dass hei grad virun eiser aller Aen d’Transparenzgesetz ënner Ugrëff steet. Hei gëtt e Gesetz, wat de Bierger*innen soll déngen, a Fro gestallt vun enger DP-CSV-Stad-Regierung vun där och vill Memberen an der Chamber sëtzen.

Wann een d’Ufroen un d’CAD kuckt, gesäit een ëm wat et beim Transparenzgesetz eigentlech geet: Privat Kontrakter mat Administratiounen, Ännerunge vu PAGen, Convocatioune mat Administratiounen an esou virun. Et geet oft ëm banal Saachen, wou d’Ëffentlechkeet freet: „ass dat korrekt gelaf?“ Et geet em Saachen, déi eist alldeeglecht Liewe beaflossen, an un deenen är ONG schafft, oder iwwer déi är Publikatioun schreift. D’Transparenzgesetz ass déi stäerkste Waff vu Bierger, Journalisten an ONGe wann et drëms geet Ongerechtegkeet opzedecken, Korruptioun ze ënnerbannen, a Verwaltungen zur Rechenschaft ze zéien.

D’Transparenzgesetz ass e Scheinwerfer am Däischteren. D’Tatsaach, dass d’Geriicht eis net nëmme Recht ginn huet, mä och domat d’Muecht vun dësem Outil zementéiert huet, ass prodemokratesch a fräiheetlech. Et ass berouegend ze wëssen, dass Riichteren op der Säit vun der Demokratie stinn.

De Problem ass iwwregens kee Lëtzebuergesche Problem: Organisatiounen an alle westlechen Demokratië stelle fest, dass dës Refuse vun Informatiounen ëmmer méi dack ginn, ëmmer erëm mat änlech Taktiken. Den däitsche Journalist Arne Semsrott huet kierzlech Transparenzgesetzer als „Schönwettergesetze“ bezeechent. Et si Gesetzer déi agehale ginn, wann alles fein ass, mä déi mat Féiss getrëppelt ginn, wann et enk gëtt. Wéi dat an de Kontext vum beonrouegende Wandel vun eise westlechen Demokratië passt, erkläert sech vu selwem.

Et geet eis, dem ZUG, nach ëmmer nëmmen a just em Zebrasträifen. Mä et geet an deem Prozess em net manner, wéi e Schiet iwwert d’Verwaltungen ze leen. Dat ass net onbedéngt eist Thema; et ass vläicht äert. All Kéiers wann d’Politik probéiert, hiert Handelen a Schafen ze verschleieren, brauche mir all eis géigesäiteg Hëllef, fir ganz genee hinzekucken. Dofir hu mir dräi Uleies un Iech:

• Wann iergendwou eng Transparenzufro gestallt gëtt, Beriicht doriwwer – de Site vun der CAD publizéiert d’Ufroen déi bei si kommen
• Wann dir mat Verwaltunge schwätzt, maacht hinne kloer dass Transparenzgesetzer net dierfe beschnidde ginn
• Loosst eis géigesäiteg hëllefen. D’Zesummenaarbecht vun ONGen a Journalisten ass entscheedend, fir eng staark Kultur vun Transparenz ze fërderen

Lëtzebuerg rutscht ëmmer weider of wat Indexe vun Transparenz a Pressefräiheet ugeet. De FOIA an den USA oder d’IFG an Däitschland hu gewisen, dass Transparenz kann zur Traditioun ginn. Eist Transparenzgesetz ass nach jonk – a mir kënnen ëm hëllefen, goen ze léieren.

Wann eis dat geléngt, schafe mir domat net nëmmen eng Kultur vun der Transparenz, mä och eng vun de wichtegste Grondlagen, déi richteg Problemer vun der Zukunft wéi Demokratieerhalt, Klimawandel a Fridden ze ënnerstëtzen. An dat ass et derwäert.

Am Numm vun ZUG,
Thorben Grosser.

Luxembourg’s Commission d’Accès aux Documents (CAD) plays a pivotal role as an oversight body ensuring transparent and open administration interpreting Luxembourg’s freedom of information law (loi du 14 septembre 2018 relative à une administration transparente et ouverte – let’s call it LATO). The CAD reviews disputes when individuals request access to documents from public authorities and are denied, or receive partial or no response.

In this post, we aim to:

1. Understand, what type of LATO requests are made. There is, sadly, no comprehensive overview of all LATO requests sent to administrations – however it seems reasonable to assume that requests made to the CAD are similar in scope and proportion to the general requests
2. Understand, what the decision patterns of the CAD are like.
3. Provide practical takeaways for interested LATO users and our own stance on the role of the CAD within the LATO framework.

This information was compiled and analyzed by ZUG.

Table of Contents

We at ZUG became interested in the CAD and LATO during our Safe Crossing investigation.

Generally, while the CAD reviews are not legally binding, they are reviewed by an interdisciplinary team and one should be able to assume court rulings will come to similar conclusions. Therefore, any reasonable administration should have little interest in fighting CAD decisions based on the decision. Yet, they do. We at ZUG regard fighting CAD decisions in a similar light as SLAPP lawsuits.

What kind of LATO requests make it to the CAD, and what requests get approved and denied by the CAD gives us a crucial insight into the workings of the transparency law in Luxembourg.

Below is an analysis of a data set containing several dozen decisions, illustrating how the Commission interprets Luxembourg’s freedom of information law (loi du 14 septembre 2018 relative à une administration transparente et ouverte) and balances public interest with legal exemptions.

Overview of the Decisions

From the raw data (98 entries), each row represents a separate decision (“avis”) issued by the CAD. Each decision revolves around a requester asking for one or more documents from a public authority, such as a ministry, municipal administration, or public institution. Authorities sometimes refuse on various grounds, prompting the requester to seek a review by the CAD. It is important to understand that this does not happen automagically. The requester needs to present their case to the CAD. In turn this means that not all refused requests become visible.

We have divided, aligned with the content of the decisions, the outcome into four categories:

In aggregate, the data shows that a significant percentage of cases receive at least some form of disclosure (either positif or partiellement positif), while the rest are refused or dismissed as irrecevable. However, it becomes also clear that the CAD is strict in its proceedings, not lightly “green-lighting” every request.

Key Themes and Common Types of Requests

A closer look at the requests reveals several recurring themes:

1. Administrative and Urban Planning Documents
   • Construction permits, building plans, technical studies (e.g., geotechnical, hydrological)
   • Master plans (PAG) and special development plans (PAP)
   • Requests often end up partially granted or fully granted if they are specific enough, but internal floor plans and personal data are typically redacted or refused.
2. Contracts and Agreements with the State
   • Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with foreign governments (e.g., Luxembourg-China Belt and Road Initiative, Luxembourg-USA space cooperation)
   • Service contracts between ministries and private companies (e.g., testing services, technology consulting)
   • These requests often face refusals due to commercial confidentiality, foreign affairs exemptions, or regulatory/inspection missions.
3. Personal Data and Privacy
   • Individuals seeking personal files or files mentioning them (e.g., police inspection records, apprenticeship contract disputes)
   • Marriage certificates or other civil registry data that relate to third parties
   • In many cases, the CAD either denies, declares irrecevable or instructs heavy redaction based on Article 6 of the law, which protects personal data.
4. Oversight of Public Funding or Administrative Control
   • Access to documents regarding subsidies, tax rulings, or audits
   • Often refused if the documents fall under “control, inspection, and regulation” missions of agencies (e.g., the CSSF in finance, CNPD in data protection, ADEM in employment regulation).
5. Scope of the Law and Procedural Requirements
   • Many requests are declared irrecevable because they do not ask for a specific document but for generic “information.” The law requires requesters to identify documents with reasonable precision.
   • Some requests fall outside the law’s scope (e.g., purely internal deliberations, unfinished or “in-progress” drafts, or older documents not covered by the 2018 law).

The themes of the requests directed at the CAD indicate that the themes are largely about what affects a broader public on a daily level. While a small number of requests deem to be purely relevant to few individuals, the vast majority of requests if affecting a general population.

3. Reasons for Refusals: Exemptions in Action

Foreign Relations and Security

Article 1, paragraph 2, point 1 of the law excludes documents whose disclosure could harm Luxembourg’s foreign relations or national security. Examples include:

• MoUs with foreign governments regarding diplomatic or strategic matters (China Belt and Road, Luxembourg-USA in space).

Regulatory, Control, and Inspection Missions

Documents tied to bodies like the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF), the National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD), or the police’s regulatory and inspection roles fall under exemptions:

• If the requested file belongs to an ongoing or closed investigation/regulatory procedure, CAD often upholds the authority’s refusal.

Personal Data Protection

Under Article 6 of the law, personal data of third parties generally cannot be disclosed to someone not concerned by the data:

• Marriage or birth certificates, personal details in contracts, or health records typically get redacted or refused in full.

Unfinished Documents and Internal Deliberations

Drafts and incomplete documents can be withheld:

• The law excludes “unfinished” documents still in progress, such as preliminary notes for a future bill or an unapproved ministerial report.

Requests for ‘Information’ Rather Than a ‘Document’

Many irrecevable rulings arise because the requester asks for broad explanations or data sets that do not exist in a single, identifiable document:

• “All documents related to a certain topic” or “information about land ownership or policy decisions” is often rejected unless the requester specifies a concrete report, file, or record.
• It is important to notice that article 4(2) of the law requires administrations to help requesters to find documents if requested.

If we plot the results on a stacked maximized bar chart, this picture becomes very apparent:

The CAD is clearly protecting private contractual interests, and staying out of employment and labour questions. Also aforementioned personal data requests are either declared “irrecevable” or “avis négatif“.

Trends and Observations

1. Partial Disclosure is Common
   Even when authorities initially refuse access citing exemptions, the CAD often rules that some parts are releasable if sensitive content (personal data, security details, trade secrets) is redacted.
2. Data Protection and Privacy Remain Key Barriers
   Requests that risk exposing third-party personal information or confidential business data are frequently limited or refused.
3. Specificity Matters
   The difference between a successful and an inadmissible request often lies in identifying exact documents or referencing known filenames, dates, or authors. Sweeping requests for “all communications” or “all data” usually fail. Even though, and we cannot stress this enough, the administrations are held to support requesters in finding the right information.
4. Foreign Relations Documents
   Requests about international agreements—particularly if they touch on diplomacy or security—are routinely refused, reinforcing Luxembourg’s stance that such materials must remain confidential.

Luxembourg in International Context

Freedom of Information laws exist worldwide—FOIA in the United States, Access to Information laws across the EU, and varied frameworks in countries like Canada, Australia, and the Nordics. In many jurisdictions, an independent ombudsman or commission addresses disputes much like Luxembourg’s CAD.

However, Luxembourg’s LATO is relatively new (2018). Some countries with older FOI laws (e.g., Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act dating back centuries) have well-established cultures of transparency. Others, like the UK, place enforcement in the hands of the Information Commissioner’s Office, which can issue binding orders. Interestingly, both the UK FOIA act as well as the German IFG have their ombudsmen set inside the same organisations that are responsible for data protection. Luxembourg’s CAD, by contrast, reports directly to the prime minister and issues non-binding opinions—though carry persuasive weight.

Yet, as we see in the ZUG vs. VdL case, the non-binding nature can create friction when authorities choose to ignore CAD decisions. This underscores a broader global lesson: strong FOI legislation must go hand-in-hand with robust enforcement.

Conclusion

The decisions of the Commission d’Accès aux Documents demonstrate how Luxembourg’s freedom of information framework balances the public’s right to transparency with the state’s obligation to safeguard personal data, ensure national security, and protect ongoing regulatory or diplomatic processes. The CAD’s role is essential in clarifying how authorities should interpret and apply exemptions.

Key takeaways for anyone seeking information under Luxembourg’s LATO include:

• Be Specific: Narrowly define the documents you want (by date, subject, or known title). While administrations are bound to help, it seems they don’t always do.
• Know the Exemptions: Anticipate personal data, foreign affairs, security, or regulatory constraints.
• Persistence Pays Off: If a request is initially refused or only partially met, consider appealing to the CAD for a balanced review.
• Money Rules: If an administration chooses to ignore the CAD decision, filing a lawsuit is inevitable. This is, unfortunately, associated with high cost.

Luxembourg’s transparency law is instrumental for citizens, journalists and NGOs alike. It provides an extremely powerful tool to question and control authorities and keep administrations in check. This is essential for the functioning of a modern democracy.

The CAD is a great help in empowering citizens. Having a stand-alone CAD seems like a useful luxury. However, the ZUG vs. VdL case also made clear the CAD should have more powers.

Finally, ZUG questions the need for private economy contracts to remain confidential. After all these get usually paid with taxpayer money and signed by representatives of the people. Reviewing this practice seems admirable.

For transparency you can find the raw dataset here.

The dataset was created by scraping all decisions from the CAD website and running it through OpenAIs GPT-4 model.

import os
import pdfplumber
import fitz  # PyMuPDF
import openai
import pandas as pd
import json
import time

# Configure OpenAI API Key
openai.api_key = "sk-#########################################"

# Path to the folder containing the PDFs
PDF_FOLDER = "pdfs"

# Output Excel file
OUTPUT_FILE = "CAD_Updated_Analysis.xlsx"

# Step 1: Extract text from PDFs
def extract_text_from_pdf(pdf_path):
    try:
        with pdfplumber.open(pdf_path) as pdf:
            return "\n".join([page.extract_text() for page in pdf.pages])
    except Exception as e:
        print(f"pdfplumber failed for {pdf_path}: {e}")
        # Fallback to PyMuPDF
        try:
            doc = fitz.open(pdf_path)
            text = ""
            for page in doc:
                text += page.get_text()
            return text
        except Exception as e:
            print(f"PyMuPDF also failed for {pdf_path}: {e}")
            return ""

# Step 2: Analyze text with OpenAI API using the new interface
def analyze_text_with_chatgpt(text, retries=3):
    if not text.strip():
        return {}
    prompt = f"""
You are analyzing a French document from the Commission d’Accès aux Documents (CAD) in Luxembourg regarding a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Please extract and summarize the following information in English, using consistent field names and specific formatting:

1. **Themes of the Request**: Provide a concise summary of the main themes or topics of the FOIA request.

2. **Decision**:
   - Classify the decision into one of the following categories:
     - "Avis positif"
     - "Avis partiellement positif"
     - "Avis négatif"
     - "Irrecevable"
   - If the decision is not "Avis positif," provide the reason for the decision.

3. **Authority Involved**:
   - Identify the parties involved in the FOIA request (e.g., ministries, organizations, or departments).
   - Exclude the CAD and its members from this list.

4. **Keywords**:
   - Provide a list of keywords that describe what the request was about.
   - The keywords should allow a journalist to quickly understand the context and main focus of the request.
   - Use clear and concise terms; avoid redundancy or overly generic words.

Return the information in the following JSON format (field names must match exactly):
{{
    "Themes of the Request": "Concise summary of the themes.",
    "Decision": "One of the four categories",
    "Reason": "Reason for the decision (if applicable)",
    "Authority Involved": ["Authority 1", "Authority 2"],
    "Keywords": ["Keyword 1", "Keyword 2"]
}}

If any field does not apply or cannot be determined, leave it blank.

Here is the document:
{text}
    """
    for attempt in range(retries):
        try:
            # New OpenAI API format
            client = openai.OpenAI(api_key=openai.api_key)
            response = client.chat.completions.create(
                model="gpt-4",
                messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
            )

            # Extract raw response content
            raw_content = response.choices[0].message.content

            # Extract JSON from the response
            json_start = raw_content.find("{")
            json_end = raw_content.rfind("}")
            if json_start != -1 and json_end != -1:
                extracted_json = raw_content[json_start : json_end + 1]
                return json.loads(extracted_json)
            else:
                raise ValueError("Could not extract JSON from response.")

        except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
            print(f"JSON decode error on attempt {attempt + 1}: {e}")
            print("Raw response:", raw_content)
        except Exception as e:
            print(f"Error on attempt {attempt + 1}: {e}")
        time.sleep(2)  # Add a small delay before retrying

    print("Failed to analyze text after multiple attempts.")
    return {}


# Step 3: Process all PDFs sequentially
def process_pdfs_sequentially(pdf_folder, output_file):
    data = []
    pdf_files = [os.path.join(pdf_folder, f) for f in os.listdir(pdf_folder) if f.endswith(".pdf")]

    for pdf_file in pdf_files:
        print(f"Processing {pdf_file}...")
        text = extract_text_from_pdf(pdf_file)
        analysis = analyze_text_with_chatgpt(text)
        if analysis:  # Only add if analysis succeeds
            data.append({"Filename": os.path.basename(pdf_file), **analysis})

    # Save to Excel
    df = pd.DataFrame(data)
    df.to_excel(output_file, index=False, engine="openpyxl")
    print(f"Data saved to {output_file}")

# Main script
if __name__ == "__main__":
    process_pdfs_sequentially(PDF_FOLDER, OUTPUT_FILE)

Categorization was made on a best-effort basis. Many requests fit into multiple categories. In order to simplify the process, the strongest matching category was chosen as sole category. This can lead to some odd data.