No formal request has yet been made to the city regarding the construction of a new legal quarter (Cité judiciaire), Luxembourg City Mayor Lydie Polfer said in an interview with radio 100,7 on Wednesday.
Her comments come at a time when there are growing calls to address overcrowding at the judicial complex on the Saint-Esprit Plateau.
Also read:Luxembourg’s legal quarter struggles for space amid hiring spree
Polfer said that while discussions are ongoing, no concrete plans have emerged. She added that accessibility and sufficient space would be critical considerations if such a project were to move forward.
She stressed that any new site must be well-connected to public transport and large enough to accommodate all judicial services under one roof, with room for future expansion. Polfer said it might be difficult to find such a location in the centre of the city.
Earlier this year, Thierry Hoscheit, president of Luxembourg’s Supreme Court, said that it is necessary for the city to have a new judicial space.
“The current Judicial City, completed in 2008, and whose physical limits were already visible at that time, is definitely no longer sufficient to bring together all the authorities and all the services on a single site, which was nevertheless one of the main objectives during the construction of the Judicial City,” he said.
Overcrowding and fragmentation
The Cité judiciaire, inaugurated in 2008, was designed as a centralised hub for Luxembourg’s courts and legal offices. The site is now stretched to capacity, with staff numbers at the country’s various courts and legal bodies increasing by almost 15% between 2019 and 2022.
To alleviate immediate pressures, several judicial bodies are being relocated. The former National Library building is set to house three chambers of the Luxembourg District Court, while family judges will move to Bonnevoie.
Also read:City survey reveals dissatisfaction with retail offering in Gare district
However, these temporary solutions have sparked criticism from legal professionals who argue that splitting services across multiple locations disrupts efficiency and complicates legal work.