Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Luxembourg
Table of contents
In Luxembourg, the Committee for the Prevention of Corruption is an inter-ministerial body responsible for advising the government on anti-corruption measures and coordinating these efforts across the public administration. It is chaired by the Minister of Justice or a person delegated by him to this effect. The Ethics Committee is the entity supervising conflicts of interest, composed of former members of government, members of Parliament, judges and senior civil servants. The Court of Auditors (Supreme Audit Institution) monitors political finance, and the Documents Access Commission oversees access to information. In Luxembourg, a public body dedicated to monitoring lobbying activities has not been established.
The Constitution and the Law of 23 January 2023 on the status of magistrates constitute the regulatory framework for judicial integrity in Luxembourg, alongside the National Council of Justice who appoints magistrates. Prosecutors are governed by the same regulatory framework as judges, and standards of ethical behaviour are provided by the Collection of Ethical Principles for Magistrates. There is also a disciplinary procedure for civil servants established in the regulatory framework under the Law on the General Statute of State Civil Servants.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Data on where Luxembourg’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Luxembourg fulfils 0% of OECD criteria on the strength of strategic framework and 0% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32% respectively. Having a strategic framework based on evidence and outlining objectives and priorities is essential to mitigate corruption risks in the public sector.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Luxembourg fulfils 40% of criteria on lobbying regulations and 33% on practice, compared to an OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
The Rule of Chamber of Deputies and the Code of Ethics for Members of Government define lobbying activities and the actors considered as lobbyists. Moreover, since 2024, Luxembourg has taken several steps to encourage transparency of lobbying activities and prevent undue influence in practice. These include the publication online of a lobbying register that includes the names, organisations, domain of intervention and type of lobbying activities.
Sanctions for breaches of standards for transparency and integrity in lobbying are in place, as laid out in the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament; however, these sanctions only apply to members of Parliament and not to all public officials. There is no supervisory function in central government overseeing the transparency of lobbying.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Luxembourg fulfils 67% of criteria on conflict-of-interest regulations and 33% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
The Government Code of Ethics and the Law Establishing the General Status of Civil Servants both define incompatibilities between public functions and other private or public activities and circumstances that can lead to conflict-of-interest situations. The Rules of Procedure for Parliament define institutional responsibilities as well as submission compliance and content verification procedures for interest declarations. These rules establish that the Ethics Committee is responsible for the verification of content. Sanctions can be imposed there as not clearly defined as proportional to the severity of the offence.
All members of Parliament have submitted interest declarations over the 2019 to 2024 period, although this data is not available for members of the Government.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Luxembourg fulfils 60% of criteria on political finance regulations and 57% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
Luxembourg’s regulatory framework includes the Law of 2007 Regulating the Financing of Political Parties, which sets an obligation for parties and/or candidates to report their finances during electoral campaigns, and establishes that financial reports of political parties are to be made public. The law also bans anonymous donations and contributions from foreign states, enterprises, and publicly owned enterprises.
The legislative framework does not include a ceiling for electoral campaign expenses for political parties or candidates, nor do regulations ban the use of public funds and resources in favour of or against a political party. Additionally, sanctions are not clearly defined as proportional to the severity of the offence.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
Luxembourg fulfils 78% of criteria on access to public information regulations and 58% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively.
In Luxembourg, access to public information is regulated by the Law Relating to a Transparent and Open Administration, which establishes a right to access information, with the only restrictions being those listed by law and in line with the Tromso Convention. Requests must typically be fulfilled within one month, and are provided free of charge, although there is no obligation to provide information in the requested format.
While there is no primary legislation stating that government data is “open by default”, consolidated versions of all primary laws, the state budget, election results, public tenders and results of public tenders are all published online.
While ministers’ agendas are available, government sessions are not, nor is aggregated data on requests for information or lobbying. Additionally, the land registry, asset and interest declarations of the top-two tiers of public employees in the executive branch and members of the judiciary are not available.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Luxembourg fulfils 65% of criteria on judicial integrity regulations and 20% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively.
The Law of 23 January 2023 on the Status of Magistrates ensures judges guaranteed tenure until mandatory retirement, and establishes objective grounds for the dismissal of judges. Dismissal may be a final disciplinary sanction, and a list of disciplinary offenses that lead to sanctions is included in the legislation.
Merit-based, objective procedures for the selection, such as interviews, are mandatory for the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court, the State Prosecutor General, and the President of the Administrative Court, but are not mandatory for judges. The appointment of judges is based on the recommendations of the National Council of Justice, composed of 9 members elected by six different electoral colleges, with 3 members not being judges. This body provides recommendations for nominations to the Grand Duke who must appoint the successful applicant. The Law of 21 June 1999 allows candidates to appeal decisions on judicial appointments and promotions.
Standards of conduct are published and applicable to all judges, as per the Collection of Ethical Principles for Judges of 16 May 2013. However, there is no obligation for national judges to submit an interest declaration.
The law of 16 May 2023 establishes internal reporting channels for whistleblowers in the judiciary, and protects whistleblowers against retaliation by law.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Luxembourg fulfils 62% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity regulations and 21% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively.
In Luxembourg, judges and prosecutors are governed by the same framework under the Law of 23 January 2023 on the Status of Magistrates. The law establishes objective grounds for the dismissal of prosecutors, defines the circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict of interest, and defines the circumstances under which prosecutors can or should recuse themselves. There is no obligation for prosecutors to submit general interest or asset declarations. The Law of 16 April 1979 establishes proportional sanctions for breaches of prosecutorial integrity.
The law establishes merit-based, objective procedures (e.g. interviews) for the selection and promotion of the State Prosecutor General, but interviews are not mandatory for the appointment of non-senior prosecutors. Law of 21 June 1999 allows appeals of decisions regarding the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors.
The law of 16 May 2023 also applies to prosecutorial authorities and thus establishes reporting channels for whistleblowers and protects them from retaliation.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Luxembourg fulfils 92% of criteria on the disciplinary system for civil servants on regulations and 17% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively.
The Law on the General Status of State Civil Servants sets out the disciplinary procedures for civil servants and defines a disciplinary offence as a failure to fulfil duties. It establishes a wide range of sanctions for disciplinary offences and introduces a statute of limitations for disciplinary actions. The law also establishes a right to appeal a disciplinary decision before a judicial body once administrative remedies are exhausted. The code of criminal procedure also requires officials responsible for investigating and adjudicating disciplinary cases to notify the judiciary or law enforcement authorities if a case involves suspected criminal conduct.
All central government bodies use an electronic case management system to manage disciplinary cases and proceedings. While investigating commissioners benefit from peer supervision, internal tools, weekly feedback, and ongoing training in areas such as corruption prevention and interviewing, training on how to conduct disciplinary investigations is not offered to all relevant staff.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.