Agefi Luxembourg - avril 2026

Avril 2026 21 AGEFI Luxembourg Économie & Tax By Olivier REISCH, Partner & Amin BOUAZZA, Senior Associate, DLA Piper Luxembourg L uxembourg has introduced its first consumer collective redressmecha- nism through the Lawof 20 November 2025 (Lawof 2025), imple- mentingDirective (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective inter- ests of consumers (Directive). The reformstrengthens con- sumer protectionwhile avoid- ingU.S.-style class actions. The systemenables qualified enti- ties to seek injunctive and compensatory relief but embeds strict safeguards, judicial oversight, and limits on financial incentives. It applies broadly across sectors including financial services, wheremany activities are directly consumer facing andwhere it may influ- ence investor protection obligations under MiFID II, PRIIPs or UCITS. Legislative Background andObjectives Europe has long approached collective redresswith caution. Luxembourg’s law reflects the Directive’s objectiveof harmonisingminimumstandardswith- out fostering abusive litigation. The system rejects features typical of U.S. class actions such as contin- gency fees, punitive damages, entrepreneurial liti- gation, or broaddiscovery. Instead, the lawchannels collective enforcement through vetted entities, pro- hibits pure quota litis arrangements and compensa- tion is limited to actual consumer harm. The new Book 5 of theConsumer Code governs national and cross-border actions and incorporates all Annex I instruments, ranging from digital services to finan- cial services and data protection (1) . Standing:AGatekeeperModel UnlikeU.S. class actions, where any adequately situ- ated plaintiffmay seek to represent a class, standing in Luxembourg is strictly reserved to “qualified enti- ties”:regulatoryauthorities,approvedconsumerasso- ciations,andlistedcross-borderentities (2) .Individuals cannot act as class representatives. This institutional modelcentralisesenforcementandavoidsspeculative mass claims. Jurisdiction andScope TheDistrict Court of Luxembourg, sitting commer- cially, has exclusive jurisdiction (3) .Actionmay target situations where multiple consumers in a similar situation suffer harm caused by the same trader(s) fromeither: (a) abreachof legal obligations (e.g. vio- lating consumer protection laws), or (b) one ormore breaches already established via prior injunctive proceedings (1) . Claims may seek: (i) cessation of unlawful conduct, (ii) compensation for losses, or (iii) both, with injunc- tions addressed first (4) . The scope is defined by EU consumer-protection legislation. It notably affects financial services: banking, payment services, con- sumercredit,insurance,andretailinvestmentservices. Claimsmayarise fromsystematic breaches ofMiFID II, PRIIPs or UCITS, unfair terms, unlawful fees, mis-selling, or large-scale GDPR breaches. Non-con- sumer claims such as standalone antitrust damages or securities claims fall outside the regime. Two-Stage procedure Admissibility The court verifies the plausibility of the alleged breach, standing, the existence of multiple affected consumers, and the absence of conflicts of interest (including from third-party funding). Fundingsourcesmustbedisclosedinaseparatedoc- ument, and the court may reject or suspend actions taintedby improper influence. If admissible, a judg- ment is published and accompanied by publicity measures. If inadmissible, the claimant may appeal or refile, while the limitation period for consumers is suspended (5) . Merits/implementation On the merits, the Law of 2025 envisages a “model case” approach: the courtmaybase its liabilitydeci- sionon a set of exemplary individual cases present- ed by the qualified entity, which then bind the out- come for all similar cases in the group. The court then defines the consumer group, sub-categories, andcompensableharm (6) . This is a structuredaggre- gation mechanism rather than common-law test-case litigation. Opt-In / Opt-Out Luxembourguses ahybridmodel.Opt-in ismanda- tory for bodily or moral injury and for consumers residing outside Luxembourg (7) . In other domestic cases, opt-outmaybe authorised. Participationwin- dows range from two to six months and are trig- gered by mandatory publication. Consumers who do not exclude themselves in an opt-out system are bound and barred from later re-litigating the same facts/object already compensated; in opt-in, only adherents are bound (8) . Remedies, Liquidation, andEnforcement Injunctions can be ordered without showing loss or intent; decisions are published and appealable (9) . For compensation, the court definesharmcategories,valuationmethods,pub- licity, deadlines, and appoints a liquidator (10) . The liquidator verifies claims, manages payments, and reports to the court. Late indemnification triggers statu- tory interest plus threepoints, and remaining unpaid claims can be individually enforced. Settlement andMediation Collectiveactionsmaybe settled or mediated at any stage. Settlements require court approval, must satisfy substantive cri- teria, and are published in full, with confidentiality lifted. This mirrors U.S. practice in terms of trans- parency, although without adopting U.S. litigation economics. Approved settlements bind the parties and participating consumers but do not constitute an admission of liability (11) . SafeguardsAgainstAbuse All major decisions: admissibility rulings, liability judgments, and settlements are published on the ConsumerProtectionDepartmentwebsite.Qualified entities must publish ongoing case information on theirownwebsites (12) .Crucially,third-partylitigation funding is regulated: the qualified entity must dis- close its funding sources and structure to ensure no conflict of interest or trader influence. Luxembourg has thus introduced its first con- crete frameworkon litiga- tion funding, in this spe- cific context, reflecting concern that funders (common in adversarial jurisdictions) should not steer consumer litigation forprofit inways contrary to consumers’ interests. Regardingthecosts,while the Law of 2025 does not set specific rules on cost allocation,thegeneralcivil procedure rules apply. Under Article 238 of the New Civil Procedure Code ( NCPC ), the losing party is, in principle, ordered to bear the procedural costs (“ dépens ”), unless the court decides otherwise by a reasoned decision. By contrast, lawyers’ fees and other non-recoverable expensesmaybe shiftedonlyonan equitable basis under Article 240 NCPC, at the court’s discretion. Furthermore, lawyers in Luxembourg cannot be remunerated solely by contingency fee; success fees are permitted only as a complement to a base fee, not as an exclusive arrangement. Practical Implications for Businesses For businesses operating in Luxembourg or using Luxembourg as an EU hub, the mechanism repre- sentsacredibleenforcementriskforconsumer-facing violations. While exposure is narrower than in the U.S., a single action can aggregate hundreds or thou- sandsofclaims,withsignificantfinancialandreputa- tional impact. InLuxembourg, earlyuse of themechanismis like- ly to be selective, given the qualified-entity filter, the admissibility stage, and judicial controls. Themorematerial exposure formanyLuxembourg finance and funds clients may, however, arise out- side Luxembourg through cross-border represen- tative actions in larger consumer markets where products are distributed. In practice, clients should assess risk not only under Luxembourg law, but also by reference to (i) where retail clients are locat- ed, (ii) where active qualified entities operate, and (iii) which Member States have more developed collective-redress infrastructure (e.g. Netherlands). Conclusion Luxembourg’s collective redress regime is neither symbolicnorrevolutionary.Itisacarefullycalibrated European mechanism that strengthens consumer enforcement without importing U.S.-style litigation economics. For businesses, it signals heightened accountability within a controlled procedural envi- ronment. The table below compares key features of the Luxembourg regime under the Lawof 2025with a prototypical U.S. class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( FRCP ): 1)Article L.511-2 of the Consumer Code 2)Article L.511-4 of the Consumer Code 3)Article L.512-1 of the Consumer Code 4)Articles L.511-3 5)Articles L.521-1 to -2 of the Consumer Code 5)Articles L.524-1 to -3; L.524-8 of the Consumer Code 7)Articles L.524-1(6); L.524-3(5) of the Consumer Code 8)Article L.524-14(6) of the Consumer Code 9)Articles L.523-1 to -2 of the Consumer Code 10)Articles L.524-1 to -5; L.524-8 of the Consumer Code 11)Articles L.522-1 to -7 of the Consumer Code 12) Articles L.511-5; L.521-2(3); L.523-1(3); L.524-3(5); L.522-5(5); L.530-1(3); L.530-2(3) of the Consumer Code Comparative Insight Luxembourg’s New Collective Redress Regime vs. U.S. ClassActions ȱ Aspect ȱ The ȱ Law ȱ of ȱ 2025 ȱ ȱ U.S. ȱ Class ȱ Action ȱ (Rule ȱ 23 ȱ FRCP) ȱ Standing ȱ & ȱ Representation ȱ Strictly ȱ limited ȱ to ȱ “qualified ȱ entities” ȱȱ Broadly ȱ available ȱ to ȱ private ȱ plaintiffs. ȱȱ Opt Ȭ in ȱ vs. ȱ Opt Ȭ out ȱ Hybrid ȱ model, ȱ predominantly ȱ opt Ȭ in, ȱ with ȱ mandatory ȱ opt Ȭ in ȱ for ȱ bodily/moral ȱ injury ȱ and ȱ non Ȭ resident ȱ consumers. ȱȱ Predominantly ȱ opt Ȭ out ȱ for ȱ monetary ȱ classes. ȱȱ Scope ȱ of ȱ Claims ȱ Primarily ȱ limited ȱ to ȱ consumer ȱ law ȱ violations ȱ under ȱ EU ȱ statutes. ȱȱ Broad ȱ and ȱ not ȱ subject Ȭ matter ȱ limited. ȱȱ Procedural ȱ Architecture ȱ Two Ȭ stage ȱ court ȱ process: ȱ admissibility ȱ stage, ȱ then ȱ merits/liability ȱ phase, ȱ followed ȱ by ȱ court Ȭ supervised ȱ implementation ȱ of ȱ redress. ȱ No ȱ broad ȱ U.S. Ȭ style ȱ discovery. ȱ Class Ȭ certification ȱ stage ȱ followed ȱ by ȱ adversarial ȱ merits ȱ litigation ȱ with ȱ broad ȱ discovery. ȱȱ Funding ȱ & ȱ Economics ȱ Cost ȱ allocation ȱ subject ȱ to ȱ judicial ȱ discretion ȱ under ȱ general ȱ procedural ȱ rules; ȱ non Ȭ profit ȱ claimants; ȱ limited ȱ financial ȱ incentives. ȱ Contingency ȱ fees ȱ and ȱ the ȱ default ȱ American ȱ rule ȱ on ȱ attorney’s ȱ fees. ȱȱ Remedies ȱ & ȱ Settlements ȱ Compensatory ȱ relief ȱ only; ȱ court Ȭ monitored ȱ settlements. ȱȱ Broad ȱ damages ȱ (which ȱ may ȱ include ȱ punitive ȱ damages) ȱ and ȱ negotiated ȱ settlements. ȱ ȱ R éunie en Assemblée Gé- nérale, l’Association des Compagnies d’Assu- rances et de Réassurances du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (ACA) a présenté les résultats de l’exercice 2025 ainsi que les grandes orientations du secteur. Dans un contexte marqué par des incertitudes économiques persistantes, une pression ré- glementaire croissante et des transformations rapides, le sec- teur confirme sa solidité et sa capacité d’adaptation. À l’occasion de cette 70 e Assemblée Gé- nérale, la gouvernance a été partielle- ment renouvelée avec l’élection de deux nouveaux administrateurs, Pas- cal Herrmann et Ludovic Dulauroy. Leur arrivée vient renforcer un Conseil d’administration toujours présidé par Nicolas Limbourg et composé de 18 membres, représentatifs de la diversité du marché luxembourgeois de l’assu- rance et de la réassurance. Dans son intervention, le président Ni- colas Limbourg a insisté sur la nécessité de renforcer la compétitivité du Luxembourg dans un environnement européen de plus en plus concurrentiel. Il a également souligné l’importance de faire évoluer le cadre réglementaire afin de le rendre plus lisible, plus cohérent et mieux adapté aux réalités dumarché. Enfin, il amis en avant l’accélération de la transformation du secteur, notam- ment à travers la digitalisation, l’inno- vation et le développement des talents, afin de répondre aux nouvelles attentes des assurés. Les résultats pour 2025 illustrent le dy- namisme du secteur. Les primes collec- tées en assurance directe atteignent 50,9 milliards d’euros, en hausse de 9,75 pour cent. L’assurance vie repré- sente 31,1 milliards d’euros avec une progression de 16 pour cent, tandis que l’assurance non vie s’élève à 19,8 mil- liards d’euros avec une hausse plus modérée de 1 pour cent. Cette croissance est largement portée par les activités internationales. L’assu- rance vie internationale totalise 30,3 milliards d’euros et l’assurance non vie internationale 16,15 milliards d’euros. À l’inverse, les activités réalisées avec des clients auLuxembourg représentent des volumes plus modestes, avec 1,98 milliardd’euros en assurance vie et 1,39 milliard d’euros en assurance non vie. Ces chiffres confirment le rôle du Luxembourg comme un acteur majeur de l’assurance transfrontalière en Eu- rope, en particulier dans le domaine de l’assurance vie. Malgré un environne- ment international incertain et des évo- lutions réglementaires importantes, le secteur a su maintenir sa croissance et démontrer sa résilience. Nicolas Limbourg a rappelé que la priorité reste de renforcer la compétiti- vité du secteur tout en poursuivant sa transformation, afin de continuer à ser- vir au mieux les assurés et de contri- buer à l’économie. Créée en1956, l’AssociationdesCompa- gnies d’Assurances et de Réassurances du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg re- groupe aujourd’hui 137membres. Elle a pour mission de défendre les intérêts professionnels du secteur et de promou- voir l’assurance luxembourgeoise, re- connue pour son double ancrage national et international ainsi que pour son expertise dans la protectiondes per- sonnes et des biens. Rapportannuel :https://www.aca.lu/annual-report/2025/fr/ Le secteur de l’assurance luxembourgeois confirme sa solidité ©ACA