The government wants to fit motorways and national roads with cameras that can read number plates. In its opinion of 27 October, the Council of State raised a formal objection to the entire bill.
Why the bill?
Tabled on 18 July 2025 by Minister for Home Affairs Léon Gloden, Bill No. 8584 delivers on a pledge in the government programme. Luxembourg is one of five EU countries without such a system. The government wants to give the police a tool against serious, often cross-border crime, and to be able to share this data with Belgium and the Netherlands, as provided for by a 2018 Benelux treaty. At present, the Luxembourg judiciary receives data from its neighbours but cannot return the favour.
The cameras would be installed first on motorways, particularly at the borders, then on national roads. They would photograph every vehicle and its plate, but also the driver and passengers. Plate numbers would be checked against police and customs databases (stolen vehicles, wanted persons, etc.). Where there is no match, the data would be deleted after 28 days. The system would target terrorism, serious crime, fugitives, endangered missing persons and security at major events. Traffic offences are not covered. The equipment is estimated to cost €8 million.
A damning opinion
Delivered on 27 October and adopted unanimously by the 16 members voting, the Council of State’s opinion points to a “structural deficiency” running through the whole bill. The text does not say where or on what criteria the cameras would be installed, nor who decides. As it stands, it would allow “continuous surveillance of the entire national territory”. The list of databases consulted is described as “particularly long and imprecise”. Access by the State Intelligence Service would broaden the intended uses. The notion of major events remains vague. As for the 28-day retention period (15 days in France), the Council of State “sees no reasons that would justify such a lengthy period”. Yet a law that affects privacy must itself lay down these essential elements. The National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD) and the State Prosecutor General’s Office had already raised several of these criticisms.
Dead in the water?
Not necessarily. The formal objection blocks the bill in its current form, but the government can rewrite it. Its amendments will be the subject of a supplementary opinion from the Council of State. Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee can then adopt its report, ahead of a plenary vote. On three points (major events, intelligence service access, retention period), the Council of State is already warning that it could refuse to waive the second constitutional vote, which would delay adoption by at least three months.
