The Luxembourg Government’s plans to strengthen the fight against illegal gambling have suffered a setback after the Council of State raised a series of legal and constitutional concerns over Bill 8679.
The Council of State did not fully reject the reform but blocked its progress until revisions are made.
The proposed legislation aims to act on illegal gambling machines operating in public venues such as cafés and bars. According to the Government, these activities are linked not only to gambling-related harm but also to organised crime and money laundering.
As part of the reform, authorities sought to expand law enforcement powers by allowing advanced investigative methods, including infiltration operations, surveillance and investigations conducted under electronic pseudonyms. The bill also aimed to reinforce the National Lottery’s position as the primary legal gambling provider.
However, in an opinion published on 10 June, the Council of State identified several legal ambiguities and constitutional issues, prompting it to withhold approval of the bill in its current form.
One of the main concerns relates to the proposed monopoly position of the National Lottery. While the bill maintains a general prohibition on gambling activities outside the regulated framework, the Council questioned whether such restrictions comply with European Union rules on the free movement of services.
The Council also highlighted what it described as a contradiction in the Government’s approach to anti-money laundering. While combating money laundering is presented as a key objective of the reform, the Council noted that the National Lottery currently appears to fall outside the scope of Luxembourg’s anti-money laundering legislation, creating legal uncertainty.
The Council also questioned the Government’s decision to present the legislation as only a first phase of a broader gambling reform. It warned that dividing the reform process in this way could undermine legal certainty and overall coherence.
In addition to these observations, the Council issued several formal objections on constitutional grounds. It argued that some offences are defined too vaguely, potentially breaching constitutional requirements for legal clarity.
The Bill 8679 was first introduced in January
