Agefi Luxembourg - novembre 2025

AGEFI Luxembourg 34 Novembre 2025 Droit / Emploi F ace à la complexité croissante du sec- teur financier, la formation devient un véritable levier de compétitivité. Le Luxembourg, acteur majeur de la finance européenne, doit désormaismiser sur la compétence pour répondre à des exigences réglementaires, technologiques et éthiques de plus en plus fortes. Les réglementations européennes (MiFID II, SFDR, DORA, taxo- nomie verte) et lamontée de la finance dura- ble imposent une actualisation constante des connaissances. La formation continue, un impératif stratégique Les établissements financiers doivent prouver que leurs équipes disposent des compétences nécessaires pour exercer dans un cadre réglementaire strict. La CSSF exige que cette mise à jour soit documentée, transformant la formation en obligation administra- tive. Cependant, les institutions qui développent une culture d’apprentissage continu se démarquent en matière de conformité, d’innovation et de durabilité. Ledéfirested’éviter la lassitude liéeàdes tests répéti- tifs pour redonner du sens à la formation. Le Luxembourg, laboratoire de la compétence Grâceàladensitédesesacteursfinanciers,leLuxem- bourgconstitueunécosystèmeidéalpourmutualiser et structurer les compétences. L’initiative du Luxem- bourg Institute for Financial Education ( LI 4 FE ) , por- tée par EFPA Luxembourg , illustre cette volonté de professionnaliser les parcours. L’institut propose des e-learning,webinaires,conférences,etsurtoutdesfor- mations certifiantes, alignées sur les standards euro- péensd’EFPA,couvrantdesthématiquestellesquela conformité, la finance durable, l’éthique ou la gestion de patrimoine. «Notremissionest depermettre à chaque acteur du secteur financier de rester compétent, conforme et confiant face aux mutations du métier », explique Patrick Levaldaur, directeur d’EFPA Luxembourg. «Grâce à cette affiliation, le LI 4 FE bénéficie d’un ré- seau d’experts européens, d’un cadre de formation éprouvé et d’une visibilité continentale, tout en res- tant ancré dans le contexte réglementaire et culturel luxembourgeois », précise le directeur. La certification,moteur du développement professionnel Lacertificationpermetdevalideretvaloriserlescom- pétencesexigéesparlaréglementation,toutenredon- nant à la formationun rôle de développement. Liée à une obligation de formation continue, elle favorise la spécialisation,lamotivationetl’agilitédesprofession- nels, en remplaçant les évaluations purement admi- nistratives par un apprentissage utile et évolutif. Nouveaux défis : finance durable et digitalisation Les professionnels doivent désormaismaîtriser des domaines émergents tels que les critères ESG, la gestiondes risques climatiques, la cybersécurité ou l’intelligence artificielle. Les plateformes d’appren- tissage en ligne, comme celle du LI 4 FE, facilitent cette mise à jour permanente des connaissances dans unmonde digitalisé et en constantemutation. Une responsabilité collective Lamontée en compétence est un enjeu stratégique pour la réputation et la pérennité de la Place luxembourgeoise. Former, certifier et actualiser de- viennent les piliers du développement du capital humain. Malgré les défis—diversité linguistique, attraction des talents, intégration technologique —, la direc- tion est claire : la compétence est la première ligne de défense et lemoteur de la résilience du secteur financier luxembourgeois . Informationscomplémentaires :https://www.li4fe.lu/ La compétence, nouvel atout stratégique de la Place financière ©EFPA By Vincent WELLENS, Avocat à la Cour, Ottavio COVOLO, Avocat à la Cour & Clara ROBERT, Avocate, NautaDutilhAvocats Luxembourg S.à r.l. A fter a five-year wait since the bill was first introduced, and three years behind the European sche- dule, Luxembourg has taken an im- portant step forward in consumer protectionwith the first constitutional vote on 30 October 2025 on bill of lawn°7650 amending the Consumer Code and intro- ducing collective actions in consumer law (the “Bill”). Background TheBillwasintroducedafewmonthsbeforethecon- clusions of negotiations at the EU level on the same topic. The Directive 2020/1828 of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for theprotectionof the col- lectiveinterestsofconsumers(the“ CollectiveActions Directive ”),whichreplacestheprior“ InjunctionsDi- rective ” 2009/22 limited to court injunctions to cease breaches of consumer law. AmongtheshortcomingsoftheInjunctionsDirective was that it did not cover the compensation of con- sumers, despite such topic being arguably the main interest in consumer litigation. Following an unsuc- cessful attempt by theEuropeanCommission to trig- gerchangethroughanon-bindingRecommendation n°2013/396/EU, the Collective Actions Directive was drafted in order to tackle the issue of compensating consumersthroughtheintroductionofacollectivere- dress mechanism in all EU member States. The Bill wasthenadaptedtotakeintoaccountthefinalversion of the CollectiveActions Directive, and had to be re- draftedafternumerousconcernsraisedbykeystake- holders, such as theUCL. Wider scope of breaches – not just consumer law The Bill establishes a comprehensive and cross-cut- ting systemof injunctions, covering infringements of Europeanlawinthebroadsenseinanexhaustivelist in Annex 1 to Directive (EU) 2020/1828. Unlike the formerInjunctionsDirective,thisisnotlimitedtocon- sumer law, but includes infringements of theUCTIS Directive, theAIFMD, MiFID II, PSD II, Solvency II, andtheGDPR,butalsotheDSA,DMAandtheData Act (added later on). However, it should be empha- sised that damages arising frombreaches of compe- titionlawwillnotbeincludedintheactionsprovided for in the Bill. It should be noted that the European legislatormeanttheCollectiveActionsDirectiveasan additional tool for redress, and is without prejudice tootherformsofredressprovidedbyothertexts,with a hint that the GDPR “ could, where applicable, still be used for the protection of the collective interests of con- sumers ”, (1) even before the CJEU rulings on damages claims under theGDPR. Old andnewplayers Injunctionsmaynowbesoughtby–amongstothers- any natural person with an interest in taking action, aswell as by any approved association either inLux- embourgoranEUmemberState.Sectorialregulatory authorities may also bring actions; the Competition Authorityalreadypublicisedtheirnewpowertobring collective actions specifically in the DSA and the DMA. The Bill only foresees one approval to be able tobringinjunctionsand/orcollectiveactions.Existing approved associations, according to the parliamen- taryworks,willautomaticallybeapprovedforbring- ing collective actions. (2) The 5-year approval is however not destined to be granted tonewly-createdassociations created for the singlepurposeofbringingforwardacollectiveaction. The criteria indeed require i.a. (i) an active involve- ment in the protection of consumer interests for twelvemonthspriortoitsapplicationfordesignation, (ii) a corporate object demonstrating that it has a le- gitimate interest in protecting consumer interests within the meaning of the Collective Actions Direc- tive, and (iii) independent and is not influenced by persons other than consumers, in order to avoid any conflict of interest. Further to a concession from the government, an ad- hoc approval canbegivenby the judge for agivenas- sociation if it fills the required criteria but did not go through the application process. This interest in the abilitytobringclaimsisfurtherhighlightedbytheBill and answers to parliamentary questions clarifying thatsuchclaimsmayalsobebroughtforbreachesbe- fore the Bill enters into force as law. Third-party litigation funding There is also amandatory disclosure of information demonstrating that theentitymeets the criteria listed above and information on its sources of funding in general, its organisational, management and affilia- tionstructure, its statutorypurposeand its activities. Toour knowledge, this is thefirst concretemeasures in Luxembourg relating to third party litigation funding, a practice usually found and regulated in adversarial systemswhere securing funding for liti- gation is a crucial factor of success andwhere the lit- erature often deems as one of the main hurdles for consumer actions. Collective redress are not class actions The intent of the European Commission was not to followtheclassactionmodelfoundnotablyintheUS. Such phenomenon is considered as fundamentally tied to the features of their legal system, notably in terms of winner-takes-all , punitive damages, lawyer successfees,…andsufferfromimportantdrawbacks of lengthyprocedures for oftenminor – if not ridicule –compensationforconsumers,aswellasencouraging anindustryoflitigationpracticeswhichwouldcreate unwantedriskandburdenforcompaniesand–inour view – unwanted practices from lawyers as well. Whilst this is a concern shared by the Luxembourg government, the initial draft tried tonev- ertheless allow for individual con- sumers to start collective actions, with the risks stemming therefrom being somewhatmitigatedby the lackof dis- covery proceedings, the prohibition of lawyers being exclusively remunerated on success fees (so-called quota litis pacts), and the principle under Luxembourg tort law to repair the entire dam- age sufferedby thevictim. (3) This was however not sufficiently convincing and was removed from the final draft. Instead,theauthoriseden- titiespertheBillwillbeable to bring collective redresses where the individual interests of severalconsumersinasimilaroriden- tical situationhavebeenharmedbyoneormorepro- fessionals.Suchdamagemustresultfromoneormore breaches established in the context of a prior injunc- tion, or have as a common cause a breach of the legal obligations of one ormore of the same professionals. AcollectiveactionmaybebroughtbeforetheLuxem- bourgdistrictcourtincommercialmatters(insteadof civilmatters beforehand) in the event of a national or cross-borderbreach,includingwheresuchbreachhas ceasedbefore the collective actionhas beenbrought. In case of cross-border breach, any qualified entity designatedinanotherMemberStatemaybringarep- resentativeactionbeforethecourtsofanothermember state,meaningthatanentitydesignatedabroad–such asNOYBinAustria–willbeabletobringproceedings inLuxembourgtoobtaininjunctivemeasures,redress measures,orliabilityfindingsinthecontextofacross- border dispute. Once the writ of summons has been served, the law provides for a two-step approach: one judgement on the admissibility and a second on the liability. This is similar tobifurcationas found inarbitrationproceed- ings and has the advantage of settling all procedural issues from the outset, and to allow the parties to arguesolelyandfullyonthemerits.Thisisalsoacost- savingmeasureforboththedefendantandthecourts as it filters caseswithout theneed toallocate timeand resources to studying the matter. The liability judg- ment is basedonmodel action or “ test case ” proceed- ings ; judges hand down a decision in a typical case, in this instance “ exemplary individual cases ”,whichap- plies to all similar cases, in otherwords to all persons inanidenticalorsimilarsituationwhosufferdamage causedby a breachof duty by the same perpetrator. Wheretheclaimantentityissuccessfulinboththead- missibility and liability judgement, the court will ap- point a liquidator to carry out all the steps and tasks necessary for theproper implementationof the judg- ment. The court will also set the time limit within which the consumers concernedmay join the group in order to obtain compensation for their loss as de- finedbythejudgmentonliability,ortoexcludethem- selves from the group, and another time limit within which the compensation for the lossmust be paid. Opt-in and opt-out Collective and class actions functionon either anopt- in system, whereby consumers are invited to partici- pate in the litigation, or an opt-out system, where consumers in similar situations are automatically in- cluded.Thelatterislessprotectiveofconsumers,since theymay not act in time for their compensation and wouldbebarredfromobtaininganotherformofcom- pensation(sinceonemaynotbecondemnedtwicefor the same harm). The Luxembourg legislator recog- nised that the lattermay bring some certainty topro- fessionals, and has therefore left this choice to the courtswhendraftingtheirliabilityjudgements,whilst imposing the opt-in in case of bodily harm or cross- border litigation. Publicity Each collective action claimant must provide infor- mation, in particular on their website, concerning the collective actions they have decided to bring, their progress and the results obtained. The judge- ment, whether admissible or not, and/or whether the liability if foundor not,must bepublished. Con- sumers shall be informed of the judgment on liabil- ity through thepublicityandconsumer information measures provided for in the Bill. Settlements andmediation As reported in public statements by the Govern- ment, the Bill does indeed put a focus on the possi- bility to achieve out of courts settlements through the prism of existing mediation rules, which have been slightly tweaked through an explicit list of practical matters to agree on (e.g., how consumers are informed and can redeem their compensation), more selective criteria for the mediator, and the re- moval of confidentiality for the settlement agree- ment for its publication (as is also often the case in class action settlements in the US). The settlement will be then treated in the samemanner as a judge- ment on liability as explained beforehand. So no class actions? Theadoptionof BillNo. 7650marks a significant step forward inLuxembourg’s legal arsenal for consumer protection, introducing a collective redress mecha- nismforthefirsttime.However,itsscoperemainssig- nificantlylimited.Indeed,therighttotakelegalaction is reserved for qualified entities, and to date, only the LuxembourgConsumers’Union(ULC)meetstheap- provalcriteriasetoutinthetext.Takingabroaderview however, Europe sees private enforcement gaining momentum in consumer lawwhilst class actions in theU.S.havelargelyfallenoutoffavour.Thesetrends are further corroborated by the appetite of both the UCL and the CompetitionAuthority over their new- foundprocedural powers. Thisdevelopmentdoeshowevernotremovethe‘class action’-like cases which remain possible under Lux- embourg law, although these have faced issues in terms notably of costs (as a bailiff must be involved for each new claimant), case management for both lawyers and courts, and the expectation to argue it as individual cases incertainaspects ; For instance, Lux- embourg courts will strike out a case for being un- clearly drafted if it does not clearly allocate for each claimant their share of the claim. WhethersuchtrendisconfirmedwiththeBillentering intoforceremainstobeseen.Courtsmayremainopen to importingcertain lessonsdrawn fromclass actions in terms of practical means of enforcement, although theymightrejectanyproceduralparallelsdrawnwith them. Collective redress are likely tobe consideredas a European phenomenon which may resemble or overlapwith administrative proceedings brought by the same supervisory authority. 1) Recital 15 CompensationDirective 2) Doc. Parl. n°7650/09, p.5 3) Doc. Parl., n°7650/01, p.28 ClassActions in Luxembourg ? Not quite