Luxembourg ombudsman shocked at lack of refugee housing

Claudine Konsbruck has been in office as ombudsman for a year. In an interview with the Luxemburger Wort, she discussed the challenges faced in the role, as well as some of the findings in the ombudsman’s annual report, which will be presented on Wednesday.

Was there any case in the last year that particularly shocked you and has stayed with you?

We have received a whole series of complaints from refugees who are housed in ONA (national reception office) facilities but cannot move out because they cannot find a flat. So they end up living in ONA facilities for months or even years. I am generally shocked by how many cases are down to a housing shortage – and not just among refugees.

Was there a particular ministry or administrative body that received a particularly high number of complaints?

We have received numerous complaints regarding the Directorate of Immigration, as the processing times for cases are extremely long. If a person is granted international protection and, for example, applies for family reunification – which is a fundamental right – the processing time for such an application currently stands at 35 months. Such delays are no longer acceptable.

It is unacceptable to let this drag on for so long. I know that the immigration directorate has a heavy workload and that there is also a housing problem when it comes to accommodating people with their families. But the right to bring one’s family over is a fundamental right. We also informed [Home Affairs] Minister Léon Gloden of this in January in an attempt to shorten the processing times.

People are left in the dark for a long time about the status of their case. When we then intervene, communication with the directorate is very good and we receive prompt replies. Other government departments do not respond so quickly, which is something I have also noticed this after a year in the role of Ombudsman.

Given the staff shortages at the ombudsman’s office, are you even keeping up with the flood of enquiries?

The number of complaints is rising. In 2025, there were 100 more than the previous year, which is quite a lot. As we also took on new staff last year, we are still managing to keep up with the deluge.

Currently, we have reasonable processing times, so that urgent complaints can be dealt with within one to two days, sometimes even within a few hours. For other complaints, it can take two to three weeks.

However, we have noticed that many of the complaints received via email have been drafted using AI. These are often very long emails, from which the problem is not always clear. This causes us to lose time when processing the cases. One reason why AI is used so frequently may be the language barrier.

What was the most surprising finding for you in this year’s annual report?

I have been ombudsman for a year. So I don’t have that background with other reports, but the processing times at immigration shocked me. I also noticed how our role as an ombudsman’s office is perceived by the authorities and that we need to strengthen our credibility.

The Ombudsman’s Office could make greater use of the recommendations process. However, we have no means of exerting pressure to ensure that our recommendations are actually implemented. It would be good, though, if we could exert more pressure. Apart from issuing these recommendations and presenting our annual report in the Chamber, we do not have many tools at our disposal.

Do you see an ever-increasing need for the role of the ombudsman?

Yes, procedures are becoming increasingly complex. Many processes are being digitised and the population is also growing. People’s problems are also becoming ever more diverse. I don’t think our workload will decrease in the coming years. Sometimes citizens feel let down by an administration with hundreds of staff. This makes contact with the authorities increasingly anonymous, even though a citizen should actually know who is handling their application or case. I’m concerned that digitalisation will mean our workload increases.

For example, there were difficulties at [national employment agency] Adem. We learnt that there were issues with payments. Digitalisation is fundamentally a good thing, but it also brings problems and raises many questions for citizens.

(This article was originally published in the Luxemburger Wort, translated using AI and edited by Kate Oglesby.)