“On [this World Press Freedom Day], a day when press freedom is supposed to be celebrated, the Association Luxembourgeoise des Journalistes Professionnels (ALJP) is far from having its heart in the right place,” said the press organisation in a statement following the publication of the RSF’s annual world press freedom index. “Once again, Luxembourg has fallen two places in the world press freedom index drawn up by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), to 13th place. This decline confirms the trends of previous years, and the question once again arises: why is press freedom in decline in Luxembourg?”

“The Luxembourg press enjoys, in principle, genuine freedom of exercise, but the proximity of journalists’ interests to political and economic power limits its expression,” wrote Reporters Without Borders. With regard to the political context in Luxembourg, the organisation noted that, “for a long time, each party had an ‘obedient’ newspaper and, although these affiliations have come to an end, links of subordination persist in a more insidious way. As a general rule, the media work independently and journalists enjoy a great deal of freedom from political power.”

A bill criticised by the ALJP

In 2025, conditions for practising journalism are poor in half the countries in the world, noted the RSF, placing Norway, Estonia and the Netherlands in the top 3, and China, North Korea and Eritrea in the bottom three. The grand duchy is behind Liechtenstein and Germany, while Belgium came in 18th and France 25th.

“Luxembourg law guarantees freedom of expression and the protection of sources. By 2024, the Luxembourg government has promised media representatives a law guaranteeing access to public information, which has been limited in recent years due to the protection of personal data. At the beginning of 2025, the text was under discussion in Parliament,” said the RSF, referring to Bill 8421 on the promotion of professional journalism and democratic debate.

This a bill that “constitutes another major disappointment,” said the ALJP in response. “Rather than guaranteeing real access to information and making administrations accountable, it is the circular dating from the  [DP, editor’s note] era that has been enshrined in law--and even then, in a weakened version. For the ALJP, this is unacceptable. If the law is adopted in this version, we will not consider it as genuine access to information--and we will make this known, both nationally and internationally.”

“Access to information for the media remains a battle that is far from won,” it added. “The blue-red-green coalition has not managed to guarantee it in ten years of government.”

Said the RSF: “[The Luxembourg media is] numerous given the limited size of the national market, [but is] nonetheless under pressure, and the grand duchy’s small size encourages conflicts between the work of the press and various economic interests. For a long time, banking secrecy and tax evasion remained taboo subjects in the national press. When the LuxLeaks journalistic revelations shed light on the Luxembourg tax optimisation industry thanks to two employees of an auditing firm, one of them, Raphaël Halet, was fined by the court. In 2023, he was finally recognised as a whistleblower by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which condemned Luxembourg for violating freedom of expression.”

The place of the press and journalists’ access to information is regularly mentioned in the European Commission’s report on the rule of law. last October, the then-European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders was questioned by (déi Gréng) about this same draft law “for easy and rapid access to official documents for professional journalists.” Tanson said: “But it has been criticised by journalists themselves because it does not mention a deadline for providing them with this information.”

In reply, Reynders said that “the transparency of administrations has improved since the publication of our last reports, but the country can still go further. We have to listen to what journalists say, the aim is to have easier access to official documents.”

Prioritising the protection of the national press

For its part, the ALJP welcomes the action plan for the protection of journalists in principle. “But we regret the lack of a strong commitment from the government to tackle several key issues in concrete terms. For example, the European anti-Slapp Directive, which is used to silence journalists and activists. Even in Luxembourg, these complaints have multiplied in recent years, jeopardising the finances of the media, especially the smaller ones. The risk is self-censorship.”

“But a literal transposition of the directive would change almost nothing in the Luxembourg situation. The directive only applies when journalists or NGOs are attacked in several countries at the same time. We therefore urge the government--in particular the minister of justice and delegate for the media, (CSV, editor’s note)--not to apply the doctrine of ‘the directive, the whole directive and nothing but the directive,’ and to give priority to protecting the national press.”

The RSF ranking was published ahead of World Press Freedom Day, 3 May. On this occasion, the president of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, recalled that “a free press is the best shield for democracy. Journalists must be free to do their work without fear of censorship, intimidation or reprisals. The European Parliament will defend and always defend media and press freedom, not only on World Press Freedom Day, but every day.”

This article in French.