A., an Algerian national known under multiple aliases, entered Luxembourg irregularly and applied for international protection on 12 January 2022. EURODAC searches indicated previous asylum applications in the Netherlands (2015, 2016 and 2021) and Germany (2016). Luxembourg issued a transfer request under the Dublin III Regulation, which was accepted by the Netherlands on 21 January 2022. On 18 January 2022, the applicant was assigned to an emergency accommodation centre for a period of three months. By decision of 15 February 2022, the Luxembourg authorities decided not to examine the applicant’s claim and to transfer him to the Netherlands as soon as possible on the basis of Article 18(1)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation.

In 2022, while his transfer was pending, he was repeatedly apprehended by the police and later sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for violent theft. After his release in July 2023, by decision of 10 August 2023, Luxembourg became responsible for examining his asylum application, which it rejected in an accelerated procedure on 10 August 2023, accompanied by a return decision. In 2023, Switzerland also issued a Dublin transfer request on the basis of Article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin III Regulation, which was accepted by Luxembourg.

Between July 2023 and October 2025, the applicant was apprehended by the police for a series of offences (attempted violent theft, fights, and one report of attempted rape) while repeatedly lacking identity documents. He was placed in administrative detention on 29 December 2024, after being arrested for participating in a robbery committed with violence. The detention measure was subsequently extended for periods of one month, until the applicant’s release on 10 April 2025. On 28 October 2025, after another police intervention due to a fight, the minister ordered his detention under Article 120 of the Law of 29 August 2008 on Immigration (Immigration Law), placing him in the detention centre for one month. A. challenged the measure before the Administrative Tribunal, seeking reformation or annulment and arguing a lack of a risk of absconding, disproportionate interference with liberty, and insufficient efforts to effect removal.

The tribunal recalled that under Article 120(1) of the Immigration Law, an irregular migrant may be placed in detention to prepare removal when there is a risk of flight, unless less coercive alternatives under Article 125(1) can be effectively applied. It also noted that under Article 120(3), detention may continue only where removal efforts are ongoing and conducted with due diligence.

On external legality, the tribunal held that detention decisions are not subject to the motivation obligations of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 8 June 1979 and that the minister’s reasoning met the applicable requirements.

On internal legality, the tribunal found that there was a presumed risk of absconding under Article 111(3)(c), since A. had no valid identity or travel documents and he had offered no evidence capable of rebutting this presumption. The tribunal held that less coercive measures were inappropriate because the applicant had no fixed residence, no ties in Luxembourg, and offered no guarantees of representation; thus, house arrest or reporting duties would not prevent absconding. Additionally, it found that the minister had demonstrated due diligence in pursuing removal, as the Luxembourg authorities contacted the Moroccan Consulate on 31 October 2025 to identify A. and obtain a laissez-passer, providing fingerprints and photographs. Furthermore, there was no evidence that removal was not possible or that cooperation with Moroccan authorities would necessarily fail.

In conclusion, the Administrative Tribunal held that the applicant’s placement in administrative detention complied with Articles 120–125 of the Immigration Law. It rejected all arguments relating to lack of motivation, absence of risk of flight, lack of proportionality, or insufficient removal efforts. The court therefore dismissed the action for reformation and, consequently, found no need to rule on the subsidiary annulment claim. The detention order of 29 October 2025 was upheld in full.