• Grounds for detention in immigration law appear to be formulated in a nonexhaustive way, which is inconsistent with the principle of lawfulness and the requirement of legal certainty;
• The law provides an expansive list of situations that can lead to a risk of absconding determination, including irregular entry or stay;
• The broad basis for finding a risk of absconding leads to detention being applied systematically rather exceptionally, thus “less coercive measures” are rarely used;
• Although Luxembourg has one of the shortest maximum lengths of detention in Europe, the maximum length for children and families was extended from three to seven days in 2017;
• Courts do not review detention on their own initiative, thus judicial authorities become involved only when there is an appeal against a detention decision;
• The detention centre employs private security guards, who have raised concerns in the past because of their failure to systematically undertake specialised training to work in an immigration detention environment;
• While observers have lauded the country for improving detention conditions since it opened its dedicated immigration facility in 2011, the country has also begun detaining more people since then.