< Back to Compendium

1. Source of the legal provision

Article 457-3 Criminal Code [Code pénal] as amended by the Law of 13 February 2011 amending article 457-3 of the Criminal Code [Loi du 13 février 2011 portant modification de l’article 457-3 du Code penal]. Accessible in the original language via: Journal official du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg <https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20240308#art_457-3>

2. Legal provision in English

  • Any person who, either by speeches, shouts or threats made in public places or gatherings, or by writings, prints, drawings, engravings, paintings, emblems, images or any other written, spoken or pictorial material sold or distributed, offered for sale or exhibited in public places or gatherings, or by placards or posters displayed for public viewing, or by any means of audiovisual communication, has disputed, minimised, justified or denied the existence of one or more crimes against humanity, minimised, justified or denied the existence of one or more crimes against humanity or war crimes as defined by Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945,[1] and which were committed either by members of an organisation declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the said Charter,[2] or by a person found guilty of such crimes by a Luxembourg, foreign or international court, is punished by imprisonment of between eight days and two years and a fine of between 251 and 25,000 Euros or one of these penalties only.
  • Any person who, by one of the means set out in the preceding paragraph, has disputed, minimised, justified or denied the existence of one or more genocides as defined by Article 136bis of the Criminal Code, as well as crimes against humanity and war crimes, as defined in Articles 136ter to 136quinquies of the Criminal Code and recognised by a Luxembourg or international court, shall be punished by the same penalties or by one of these penalties only.

3. Legal Provision in the original language

  • Est puni d’un emprisonnement de huit jours à deux ans et d’une amende de 251 euros à 25.000 euros ou de l’une de ces peines seulement celui qui, soit par des discours, cris ou menaces proférés dans des lieux ou réunions publics, soit par des écrits, imprimés, dessins, gravures, peintures, emblèmes, images ou tout autre support de l’écrit, de la parole ou de l’image vendus ou distribués, mis en vente ou exposés dans des lieux ou réunions publics, soit par des placards ou des affiches exposés au regard du public, soit par tout moyen de communication audiovisuelle, a contesté, minimisé, justifié ou nié l’existence d’un ou de plusieurs crimes contre l’humanité ou crimes de guerre tels qu’ils sont définis par l’article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l’accord de Londres du 8 août 1945 et qui ont été commis soit par les membres d’une organisation déclarée criminelle en application de l’article 9 dudit statut, soit par une personne reconnue coupable de tels crimes par une juridiction luxembourgeoise, étrangère ou internationale.
  • Est puni des mêmes peines ou de l’une de ces peines seulement celui qui, par un des moyens énoncés au paragraphe précédent, a contesté, minimisé, justifié ou nié l’existence d’un ou de plusieurs génocides tels qu’ils sont définis par l’article 136bis du Code pénal, ainsi que des crimes contre l’humanité et crimes de guerres, tels qu’ils sont définis aux articles 136ter à 136quinquies du Code pénal et reconnus par une juridiction luxembourgeoise ou internationale.

4. Key Points

  • Following legislative precedents in France and Belgium, Luxembourg criminalized Holocaust denial in 1997 through Article 457-3 of the Criminal Code.
  • The provision does not reference the Holocaust directly and only applies to crimes against humanity, or war crimes from the IMT Charter more generally.
  • Unlike Article 1 (1) c, d of the EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia 2008/913/JHA (hereafter ‘EU FD 2008), Article 457-3 of the Criminal Code does not require that Holocaust denial be carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred.
  • Courts can decide to go beyond a prison sentence or fine and restrict specific civic rights.
  • The provision has been applied to statements equating public health measures during the Covid pandemic with anti-Jewish legislation in Nazi Germany.

5. Background

When Luxembourg explicitly criminalized Holocaust denial in 1997 in the course of a broader package of anti-discrimination laws, the social and legal situation in its neighbouring countries played a pivotal role. Referring to racist movements, lawmakers raised concerns about whether Luxembourg would “remain untouched by the spread of these particularly reprehensible ideas”.[3] The introduction of a paragraph on revisionism was seen as completing the provisions against racial discrimination which had been adopted when denialism had not yet surfaced in the country. In particular, a demonstration organised by neo-Nazis from neighbouring countries in commemoration of Rudolf Hess in 1994 caused concerns.[4] Revisionist movements in France by people such as Paul Rassinier to Jean-Marie Le Pen were considered by many to fall outside the freedom of historic research, as they did not intend to contribute to the search for historic truth.[5] A denial ban was also considered to be in line with the freedom of speech.[6] The text of the provision was inspired by similar laws in France (1990) and Belgium (1995).[7] However, lawmakers in Luxembourg regarded the French predecessor law as too limited in its scope in that it only criminalised ‘contestation’. Therefore, the Luxembourg provision explicitly targets not just denial, but also the justification and minimisation of the Holocaust.[8] In addition, the Luxembourg criminal law is noteworthy for the broad list of additional sanctions supplementing a possible prison sentence or fine: according to Article 457-4 in conjunction with Articles 11 and 24 of the Criminal Code, defendants can be barred from the exercise of certain rights for a duration between five to ten years: for example, from holding public office, voting or eligibility, possessing arms, or being employed in an educational establishment. Already before the EU FD 2008 came into force, Luxembourg had criminalised the denial, minimisation and justification of genocides in general through the introduction of Article 457-3 Section 2 of the Criminal Code.[9] The ban was enlarged – through implementing the demands of the EU FD 2008 in 2011 – to include war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been recognised by a Luxembourg or international court.[10]

6. Application

Cases of explicit Holocaust denial appear to be rather rare in Luxembourg.[11] That said, the author of a revisionist book, who tried to defend himself by arguing that he had made his statements in the conditional tense, in the form of questions, and said he had been unaware of the criminal prohibition, was sentenced to an 18-month suspended prison term and a fine of 2,000 Euro in 2017.[12] In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, Luxembourg observed a rise in antisemitic hate speech and statements relativising the Holocaust.[13] The District Court of Luxembourg held that a Facebook post which compared the necessity of a vaccine certificate during the Corona pandemic with the Yellow Star – badge that Jews were ordered to wear under Nazi occupation – and portrayed the sanitary measures as a “continuation of that final solution” were a criminal minimisation the Holocaust.[14] The court reached the same conclusion in the case of another defendant who had posted an image that was reminiscent of the walls of a concentration camp online, with a Illuminati symbol above the gate and signs reading: “You are now entering America. Those with no chip merge right.”[15]

7. Controversies

Article 457-3 Criminal Code refers – like its equivalent French provision – to the London Charter of 8 August 1945 for the definition of crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, during the drafting process, the Council of State in its advisory role questioned whether a domestic criminal sanction could be based on an international treaty to which Luxembourg was not a party.[16] These doubts were voiced again in the criminal defence against the above-mentioned author who was convicted for a book containing revisionist passages.[17] However, the drafters of the Luxembourg provision had held that it was “possible to refer to an existing international text which is in force and of which there is official knowledge.”[18] The court opted for a different reasoning and ruled that, despite lacking a ratification, Luxembourg had in fact acceded to the London Agreement under its Article 5 on 1 November 1945.[19]

8. Further Reading

  • Hoffmann, B. Majerus, ‘“Nationbranding”avant la lettre – Le 10 octobre 1941 dans la mémoire collective luxembourgeoise’, Luxemburger Wort (6 October 2016), pp. 2-4.
  • M. Klos, B. S. Schulz, ‘Remembering the Second World War in Luxembourg and the Border Regions of its Three Neighbours’, in C. Wille, R. Reckinger, S. Kmec, M. Hesse (eds), Spaces and Identities in Border Regions, (Transcript 2015) pp. 315-326.
  • Landau, D. Scuto, L. Wienke, ‘“What is remembered lives.” The Digital Memorial for the Victims of the Shoah in Luxembourg’ [2024] No. 219, Revue d’Histoire de la Shoah, pp. 217-235.
[1] Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal contains the definitions of the crimes over which the tribunal held jurisdiction:
  • ‘Crimes against peace’: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
  • ‘War crimes’: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
  • ‘Crimes against humanity’: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
[2] The NSDAP, the Gestapo, the SD and SS were declared to be criminal organizations by the International Military Tribunal, see Judgement of the International Military Tribunal, 30 September and 1 October 1946, accessible via The Avalon Project, Yale School of Law <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judorg.asp>. [3] Projet de loi [draft legislation] No. 4071, published in the Journal Officiel [Official Journal], 27 May 1995, p. 5. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid., p. 7, 9. [6] Ibid., p. 8 f; referring to European Court of Human Rights (9235/81) – Commission – Decision – X. v. Federal Democratic Republic of Germany [7] The reference to the French example led the Council of State, who dismissed the legislation in his advisory opinion, to point to the criticism the equivalent law had provoked among French human rights defenders at the time, 4071/01 Avis du Conseil d’Etat [Opinion of the Council of State], 23 January 1996, p. 11 <https://wdocs-pub.chd.lu/docs/archive/3d/36/3141494_pdf>. [8] Projet de loi No. 4071, published in the Journal Officiel, 27 May 1995, p. 12. [9] ‘Étude comparative sur la négation des génocides et des crimes contre l’humanité’, Institut suisse de droit comparé (ed) [2006], p. 3. [10] Projet de loi [draft legislation] No. 6126, rapport de la comission juridique [report by the legal committee], 16 December 2010 <https://wdocs-pub.chd.lu/docs/exped/052/931/095310.pdf>. [11] B. Gottlieb, ‘Sans comparaison’ d’Lëtzebuerger Land (23 October 2020), <https://www.land.lu/page/article/388/337388/DEU/index.html>. [12] F. Armborsti, ‘Luxembourg : 18 mois de prison requis contre l’auteur d’un livre négationniste’ Le Quotidien (24 March 2017) <https://lequotidien.lu/police-justice/negationnisme-lauteur-du-livre-condamne-a-18-mois-de-prison/>. [13] ‘National Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism’, Ministry of State (ed) [2023] p. 6 <https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/documents/actualites/2023/09-septembre/27-bettel-antisemitismus/brochure-panas-b5-en-web-2023.pdf>. [14] Tribunal d’arrondissement Luxembourg [Luxembourg District Court], Judgement, No. 1463/2023, 29 June 2023 <https://anon.public.lu/Décisions%20anonymisées/Tribunal%20d%27arrondissement%20Luxembourg%20pénal/07_Chambre%20correctionnelle/2023/20230629_TAL7_1463_pseudonymisé-accessible.pdf>. [15] Le Tribunal d’arrondissement Luxembourg [Luxembourg District Court], Judgement, No. 2546/2023, 20 December 2023, p. 5, 7 <https://anon.public.lu/Décisions%20anonymisées/Tribunal%20d%27arrondissement%20Luxembourg%20pénal/13_Chambre%20correctionnelle/2023/20231220_TAL13_2546_pseudonymisé-accessible.pdf>. [16] Avis du Conseil d’Etat [Opinion of the Council of State], No. 4071/01, 23 January 1996, p. 11 <https://wdocs-pub.chd.lu/docs/archive/3d/36/3141494_pdf>. [17] Tribunal d’arrondissement Luxembourg [Luxembourg District Court], Judgement, No. 1330/2017, 4 May 2017, p. 8 <https://anon.public.lu/Décisions%20anonymisées/Tribunal%20d%27arrondissement%20Luxembourg%20pénal/09_Chambre%20correctionnelle/2017/20170504-TALux9-1330a-accessible.pdf>. [18] Note du groupe de travail ‘Réforme du code penal’- sous-groupe II sur l’avis du Conseil d’Etat, 23 janvier 1996 [Note of the working group on the “reform of the Criminal Code”], 3 May 1996, p. 7 <https://wdocs-pub.chd.lu/docs/archive/0e/03/3056515_pdf>. [19] Tribunal d’arrondissement Luxembourg [Luxembourg District Court], Judgement, No. 1330/2017, 4 May 2017, p. 8 <https://anon.public.lu/Décisions%20anonymisées/Tribunal%20d%27arrondissement%20Luxembourg%20pénal/09_Chambre%20correctionnelle/2017/20170504-TALux9-1330a-accessible.pdf>.
Scroll to Top