# Taken to court by the State: about one in four published orders to leave a home in Luxembourg targets people in its reception housing We read every published peace-court housing file from 2025 and 2026, from all three courts. The State's cases are all against people who stayed in housing of the national reception office (ONA) past the date they had pledged to leave. Its share of the orders to leave was highest in Diekirch in 2025, at 40%. Canonical: [https://chathome.lu/en/insights/rent-court-files-luxembourg](https://chathome.lu/en/insights/rent-court-files-luxembourg) Published: 2026-10-02T15:37:03.380Z Updated: 2026-10-02T15:37:03.380Z The State brings about one in four published orders to leave a home in Luxembourg: 136 of 559 in the 2025 and 2026 files, all against people who overstayed in ONA reception housing. Judges granted every request decided on its merits and most often gave two months. At least three published rulings refused ONA residents the extra time tenants can request. ## Key takeaways - About one in four published residential orders to leave in Luxembourg in 2025 and 2026 was brought by the State over ONA housing; under the widest and narrowest readings of borderline files that we found, the share stays between about 23% and 26%. - When the State asks for departure and the case is decided on its merits, the published files show it winning; the real question is how much time people get, and that differed between courts and years. - In at least three published rulings from two courts, ONA residents were refused a sursis after the judgment, so the time asked for and given at the first hearing may be the only time they get. ## Who brings the orders to leave Luxembourg publishes pseudonymised housing judgments from its three peace courts on [data.public.lu](https://data.public.lu/fr/datasets/justice-de-paix-luxembourg-bail-1/). We read every file in the 2025 and 2026 collections of the Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette and Diekirch courts: 1,385 files, published up to September 2026. We kept the files in which a judge orders someone out of a home, or sets a date after which they can be removed by force. Commercial leases, other lettings that combine a home with a café, a shop or a professional use, premises with no home, corrections of earlier judgments and rulings on extra time after a judgment (*sursis*) are left out. That leaves 342 residential orders to leave in the 2025 files and 217 in the 2026 files. Because most private landlords and companies are pseudonymised, we cannot count how many cases any one of them brings. Some public and non-profit landlords are named, such as the Fonds du Logement, or shown by type, such as a communal administration. So is **the State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg**, whose cases here concern housing of the national reception office, the ONA. | Court and year | Residential orders to leave | Brought by the State | Share | |---|---|---|---| | Luxembourg, 2025 | 183 | 36 | 20% | | Esch-sur-Alzette, 2025 (no files from 15 July to 17 December) | 35 | 11 | 31% | | Diekirch, 2025 | 124 | 50 | 40% | | **All three courts, 2025** | **342** | **97** | **28%** | | Luxembourg, 2026 (files to 4 September; last counted order 21 August) | 131 | 23 | 18% | | Esch-sur-Alzette, 2026 (to June) | 27 | 6 | 22% | | Diekirch, 2026 (to August) | 59 | 10 | 17% | | **All three courts, 2026** | **217** | **39** | **18%** | | **Both years** | **559** | **136** | **24%** | Over both years, the State brought 136 of the 559 published orders to leave a home, about one in four. Sorting borderline files is a judgement, and another reader may place a few files differently. Under the widest and the narrowest readings we found, the share stayed between about 23% and 26% (see Method and limits). The share is a share of the *published* files, not of all cases. An order to leave is not an eviction: it authorises removal only if the person has not left by the deadline. In the 168 files from the State's cases we found no statement that a forced removal took place. Files from other landlords' cases do record forced removals, for example Diekirch Rép. 1636/25 and 291/26 and Luxembourg Rép. 3866/25. ## Diekirch, 2025: four in ten The share was not the same everywhere. In Diekirch's 2025 files, the State brought 50 of the 124 orders to leave, 40%. In Diekirch's 2026 files, published up to August, it brought 10 of 59, 17%. The Luxembourg court went from 36 of 183 to 23 of 131. Esch-sur-Alzette shows 11 of 35 in its 2025 files and 6 of 27 in its 2026 files, but its 2025 collection has no file dated between 15 July and 17 December 2025, so neither Esch figure covers a full year. We found no explanation in the files. The 2026 collections and the Esch-sur-Alzette 2025 collection are not complete, the dataset pages of the publisher, the Administration judiciaire, do not say how files are selected for publication, and a small court can change a lot with a few cases. We therefore report the change with its dates and do not explain it. ## Who is being told to leave In the State cases, the person told to leave is not a tenant. In 95 of the 136 files, the judgment says the person had been granted international protection (refugee status or subsidiary protection). The other 41, all from Diekirch (32 in 2025 and 9 in 2026), describe a home made available through the ONA under a pledge to leave but do not say in terms that the person had protection. In at least one of them the court's reasoning treats the occupant as a person with protection. Because the ONA also houses applicants still waiting for a decision and people whose application was refused, we do not assume these 41 had protection. The ONA's own guide says what happens after protection: "*Un BPI a un délai de 12 mois pour quitter la structure de l'Office national de l'accueil (ONA) et trouver son propre logement*" (a person granted protection has 12 months to leave the ONA structure and find their own home). While they stay, they pay a contribution set by their income and family composition, and sign a one-sided undertaking (*engagement unilatéral*) to that effect ([ONA guide, version of 19 May 2022](https://ona.gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/pdf/guide-tout-savoir-DPI-BPI-communes-FR.pdf)). The pledges quoted in the judgments also set a date to leave. The judgments show the same rule in practice: in many files, the first pledge set a move-out date about a year after protection. For example, in one Luxembourg case decided on 22 January 2026, protection was granted on 30 June 2022. A week later the person signed a pledge to leave by 1 July 2023. The ONA sent a formal notice on 17 February 2025, the State filed its case on 18 March 2025, and the judge ordered departure in January 2026, three and a half years after protection. The occupant did not dispute having to leave. The occupant told the court they could not find a new home straight away. ## How long they stayed In 94 of the 136 files, the judgment states the date protection was granted. In every one of the 94, the judgment came more than two years after protection: 2.1 to 7.5 years. In the 2026 files the middle case is about three years (29 files). In the 2025 files it is about four years (65 files), and 22 of those 65 give a grant date in 2018 to 2020. The Government has said the same thing in general terms. At the end of 2024, people granted international protection were 31% of everyone housed by the ONA, and "*la majorité de ceux-ci continue à être hébergée dans le réseau de l'ONA plus de 12 mois après l'obtention de leur statut*" (most of them are still housed by the ONA more than 12 months after getting their status) ([Government 2024 review, 3 February 2025](https://gouvernement.lu/fr/actualites/toutes_actualites/communiques/2025/02-fevrier/03-gloden-hahn-bilan.html)). At the end of 2025 they were 29.4% of residents in a network of 8,276 beds. The main network for asylum applicants had a net occupancy rate of 98.1% ([Ministry activity report 2025, June 2026](https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/publications/rapport-activite/minist-famille-integration-grande-region/2025-rapport-activites/2025-rapport-activite-mfsva.pdf)). ## Why they stay: the State's own words In 29 of the 136 files, the State's own case says the ONA kept the person housed as an exception and "*pour des raisons tenant à la difficulté de trouver des logements au Luxembourg*" (for reasons to do with the difficulty of finding homes in Luxembourg). In some files the State argues that the occupant had not proven an active search. But in none of the 168 files from these cases did we find the State saying the occupant turned down a home it had offered. The private rental market gives the context for the State's own words. chathome.lu data shows what agency listings asked on 2 October 2026. The median asking rent was EUR 1,900 a month, EUR 1,550 for studios and EUR 2,250 for two-bedroom homes, in each of four readings that day, at 11:06, 12:42, 13:53 and 15:13 UTC, each made by a different independent checker. The number of listings fell once between those readings: there were 1,440 active residential rental listings in Luxembourg, 1,173 of them with a price, at 11:06 and 12:42, and 1,360 and 1,104 at 13:53 and 15:13. The counts that follow are from the 11:06 reading: 80 of the 1,173 asked EUR 1,000 or less, and of 222 listings with a price and three or more bedrooms, 23 asked EUR 2,000 or less. These are asking rents on agency listings, not the rents any of these families could get ([method](/en/prices/methodology)). ## What the courts decide Our 136 files were chosen because a judge ordered departure, so they cannot show how often the State wins. For that, we looked at every published file from a case the State brought about ONA housing: 168 in the same collections. - In 136, the judge ordered departure. Once the pledged date has passed, judges usually treat the person as having no right or title to stay (*occupant sans droit ni titre*). - In 1, the judge declared the State's request inadmissible because it had used the wrong procedure (a *requête* instead of a *citation*), and the State paid the costs. - In 5, the departure request was not decided because the occupants had already left: the State dropped it in 4, and in 1 the court declared it without object. - In 21, the State asked only for unpaid occupation fees, and 1 is an interim ruling. - In 3, the occupants later asked for extra time after an order to leave (see below), and in 1 the State asked the court to correct an earlier judgment. So when the State asks a judge to order departure and the case is decided on its merits, the published files show it winning. The judges' real choice is the deadline. In 86 of the 136 files the judgment quotes a State request for one month, and in 3 more, all in Diekirch, the judgment says the ONA opposed any deadline longer than one month. In one further Diekirch file the ONA opposed a deadline of two months. In 4 files it agreed to three months at the hearing: 2 in Diekirch and 2 in Luxembourg, one of them after first asking for one month in writing. The judges gave: - one month in 18 cases and 40 days in 7; - two months in 60 cases; - three months in 36, four months in 9 and six months in 6. Deadlines differed by court. In the Luxembourg court, 44 of the 59 orders gave two months or less. In Esch-sur-Alzette, 10 of the 17 orders gave one month. In Diekirch in 2025, three months or more was the norm: 32 of the 50 orders. In Diekirch's 2026 files it was 1 of 10. ## A long stay is cited as a reason against more time In 31 files, all from the Luxembourg court, the judge uses a standard passage that cites the time already spent in ONA housing as a reason not to give more time. In this passage, one judgment of February 2026 says the person had "*pu bénéficier du logement mis à sa disposition pendant encore plus de 2 ans après l'obtention du statut de protection internationale*" (been able to stay in the home for more than two more years after getting international protection). Another 2026 judgment says "*près de quatre ans*", and two 2025 judgments say "*près de sept ans*". The same passage cites the "*pénurie de logements pour les demandeurs de protection internationale*", the shortage of housing for applicants for international protection. In 28 of these 31 files, the deadline was two months or less. Nine Diekirch judgments of 2025 also point to the length of the overstay when refusing the six months asked for; two of them gave two months and seven gave three months. More often, Diekirch judgments use a different line. In 22 orders (16 in 2025 and 6 in 2026) they say the State has "*déjà fait preuve d'une grande clémence*", it has already been very lenient; one more 2026 order says "*très grande clémence*". This is a stated reason, not a measured effect. Across the 94 files with a protection date, people who had stayed longer did not get shorter deadlines: two months or less went to 23 of the 33 who had had protection for two to three years, and to 9 of the 14 who had had it for five years or more. Some judgments turned the State's own delay the other way. One in Esch-sur-Alzette in 2026 said the ONA's long tolerance of overstays had given people hope they could stay, and gave six months; several Diekirch judgments in 2025 cited the ONA's late action when giving more time. In 7 Luxembourg-court orders (6 from 2025 and 1 from 2026), a place on a waiting list did not count as a search: the judge wrote that the occupants had shown no active search for a new home "*autre que l'inscription sur les listes d'attente*" (other than registering on waiting lists), for example at the Fonds du Logement. Six of these 7 orders gave two months and one gave three. We do not give a count of how often proof of a search or a personal hardship changed the deadline. An earlier draft did, but a second reading of the files could not reproduce it: the result depends on whether a hardship the occupant pleads is counted, or only one the judge relies on. The files show both outcomes. In 2026, Luxembourg judges gave six months to a very young occupant, citing family situation and career prospects, four months to an occupant in poor health with a low income, and three months to an occupant with a serious physical disability. Two other 2026 judgments noted a precarious situation and gave two months. ## No extra time after the judgment For ONA residents, the deadline in the judgment may be the only time they get. People ordered to leave an ordinary rented home can ask the judge for a *sursis*: up to three months more, renewable twice, if the judge finds they deserve it, they prove wide search efforts and the request comes within the law's time limits (articles 16 to 18 of the [amended law of 21 September 2006 on residential leases](https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2006/09/21/n1/consolide/20240801)). But article 1(3) of that law excludes reception structures for applicants and people granted protection, except for chapter V on disputes. The *sursis* is in chapter IV. On our own reading of the text, which is not a legal opinion, the wording leaves some room for doubt: article 16 lets an occupant without right or title ask for a *sursis* as well as a tenant, and article 1(2) limits the law to homes let to natural persons "*sous réserve des dispositions des articles 16 à 18*" (subject to articles 16 to 18). None of the three rulings below discusses that wording; they hold that only chapter V applies to ONA structures. At least three published rulings from two courts applied this and declared ONA residents' *sursis* requests inadmissible. On 24 January 2025, the Esch-sur-Alzette court declared inadmissible the request of two occupants who had been given two months to leave in November 2024 and asked for three months more. The Luxembourg court did the same on 14 February 2025 (Rép. 609/25), for a couple with five young children who had been given 40 days, and on 29 August 2025 (Rép. 2789/25), for a family given two months in June 2025 who told the court they were still actively searching. In the 2025 and 2026 files of the three courts we found no ruling that gave an ONA resident a *sursis*. That is weaker evidence than it sounds. Article 17 of the law says a decision on a *sursis* request is recorded as a simple note in the *plumitif*, the clerk's record of the hearing, and is open to no recourse ("*aucun recours*"), which means a grant might never appear among the published judgments. Grants to other occupants do appear in the collections, for example Diekirch Rép. 1283/25, where the other party is a communal administration and the occupants got a first *sursis* until 30 November 2025. ## The strongest case for the State The ONA runs temporary reception housing, not social housing. Its main network for asylum applicants had a net occupancy rate of 98.1% at the end of 2025, and new applicants keep arriving: 1,926 new applicants entered the network in 2025. At the end of 2025, applicants for protection were 35.1% of the people housed, people granted protection 29.4% and people under temporary protection, the status for people who fled the war in Ukraine, 24.9% ([Ministry activity report 2025, section 3.5](https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/publications/rapport-activite/minist-famille-integration-grande-region/2025-rapport-activites/2025-rapport-activite-mfsva.pdf)). So people with protection are about three in ten residents while the main network for applicants is almost full. The report gives no occupancy rate for the ONA network as a whole. The pledge is signed at the start, with a clear date, and people stay for years past it. Seen this way, going to court is the only legal tool the State has, and judges agree the claim is well founded. We also cannot show that the State takes people to court more than other landlords do. It is one repeat claimant that may take every overstay to court, while private landlords may settle. We also do not know how files are selected for publication, and that selection may explain part of the gap between Diekirch's 2025 and 2026 shares. What the files show is that both things are true. The State is entitled to its beds, and the orders are lawful. A court order moves a person out of a bed; it does not show where that person goes next. In 29 files the State itself writes that it kept people housed because homes are hard to find, and in 31 Luxembourg files the court's standard passage cites the long stay as a reason not to give more time. The files record the exit being ordered, not whether the housing problem the State describes was solved. ## What would change this conclusion This reading would be wrong if the State could show that most people it takes to court had turned down real housing offers, or that most leave for stable homes after the order. The files show neither. In five files the departure request fell away because the occupants had already left, and some of the fee-only claims also concern people who had left. So some people do find somewhere to go, but the files do not say where. An official count of where people go after leaving ONA housing would settle it. We did not find one. ## What this means for you - **If you or someone you help lives in ONA housing past the pledge date:** in the published State orders, judges usually treated the pledge date as the end of the right to stay (one Luxembourg order, Rép. 798/25, counted from the deadline in the ONA's formal notice instead), and we found no published ruling that gave an ONA resident extra time after the judgment. Ask for enough time at the first hearing and bring written proof: every housing application and every search you made, not only waiting-list registrations, and any hardship (children, health, income). In seven Luxembourg orders, judges did not accept a place on a waiting list alone as an active search; deadlines differed between courts, and 85 of the 136 orders gave two months or less. Check the [state rent subsidy](/en/financial-tools/rent-subsidy) and search [rentals by budget](/en/rent). - **If you follow housing or migration policy:** ask for the numbers the files cannot give. How many people with protection live in ONA housing today, how long they have been there, whether they were offered a home before being taken to court, where the ones who leave go, and why the published share in Diekirch fell from 2025 to 2026. This article is information, not legal advice. Anyone facing proceedings to leave their home should consult a lawyer or a legal advice service about their own case. The question for readers: should the State be able to take people with protection to court before it can point them to a home they can afford? ## Method and limits The files are pseudonymised; we never publish an address or anything that could identify a person. Published files are not all cases and may not be representative. The claimant, the occupant's status, the protection date and the deadline were read from the text of each judgment and checked by hand. Deadlines are the ones in the operative part of the judgment; in four State orders the reasoning names a different period. Counts of what judges or the State wrote are counts of exact wording. The 12-month rule comes from the ONA guide of 2022; the reception law of 11 June 2026 governs asylum applicants, and a search of its text found no provision on the exit period for people already granted protection; that is what our search found, not a legal opinion. The first version of the Luxembourg 2026 collection we downloaded, on 25 September 2026, had two files that the version the publisher uploaded on 27 September 2026 does not contain, one of them a State case; we removed both and use nothing from them. The Ministry and the ONA were not contacted before publication; any reply they send will be added here. ## Methodology Population: every file in the data.public.lu bail collections of the Luxembourg (2025: 513 files; 2026: 350 files), Esch-sur-Alzette (2025: 70; 2026: 47) and Diekirch (2025: 257; 2026: 148) peace courts, 1,385 files in all. Downloads: Luxembourg 2025, Esch-sur-Alzette 2026 and Diekirch 2026 on 2026-09-25; the Luxembourg 2026 version republished by the publisher on 27 September 2026 on 2026-09-28; Esch-sur-Alzette 2025 and Diekirch 2025 on 2026-10-01. Every ZIP matched the publisher's checksum. An earlier version of the Luxembourg 2026 collection, downloaded on 25 September 2026, had two files that the republished version does not contain, one of them a State case; nothing from them is used. Counting rule, applied in the same way to all three courts and both years: a file is a residential order to leave when (1) its operative part orders a person or a company to leave, or authorises forced removal from a set date, and (2) the premises are let or occupied only as a home. Not counted: commercial leases, meaning every judgment the court heads or decides as a commercial lease (Luxembourg Rép. 2059/26 is counted although the court holds the head lease to be commercial, because the same judgment also holds the occupants' own sub-lease to be a home lease; in Luxembourg Rép. 1710/26, also counted, the court likewise treats a room sub-lease under a head lease it calls commercial as a home lease), including 16 orders about a building that combines a home and a business (Luxembourg 12, three of them for part of such a building; Diekirch 4); 12 other mixed lettings of a home together with a café, a shop or a professional use, in judgments that are not headed simply as a commercial lease (Luxembourg 7, Esch-sur-Alzette 3, Diekirch 2; one Diekirch judgment among them is headed "bail d'habitation et commercial"); premises with no home (offices, shops, a practice, garden plots, farmland); corrections and second copies of a judgment; sursis rulings; extensions that set no removal title; rejected oppositions with no new order; and departure requests that had become moot. Result: 342 files in 2025 (Luxembourg 183, Esch-sur-Alzette 35, Diekirch 124) and 217 in 2026 (Luxembourg 131, Esch-sur-Alzette 27, Diekirch 59). The Esch-sur-Alzette 2025 collection has no file dated between 15 July and 17 December 2025. The last published Luxembourg 2026 file is dated 4 September 2026 and the last counted order 21 August 2026. The count includes 17 judgments that began as a request about the time to leave and end with a dated order or removal title (Luxembourg 8, Esch-sur-Alzette 2, Diekirch 7; 16 requests by tenants and 1, Diekirch Rép. 1702/25, by a landlord) and 1 Diekirch 2026 judgment that records the tenants' undertaking to leave by a date and authorises their expulsion if they do not. A file counts as a State case when the first party named as claimant is the State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the home was made available through the ONA; each of the 136 was read by hand. One 2025 Esch-sur-Alzette order brought by the State, assisted by the national railway company, about an ordinary flat in a station building is counted as an order to leave but not as a State case. For outcomes, we also read every other file from a case the State brought about ONA reception housing: 168 in total, including three sursis rulings on the occupants' later requests and one correction of an earlier judgment. One 2025 Luxembourg State file about a house, with no reference to the ONA, only sets an occupation fee and is not among the 168. The occupant's status was coded from each judgment as protection stated in terms or not stated. The protection date is the earliest date the judgment gives for a grant of international protection to an occupant; the gap is measured to the judgment date. Four 2025 Luxembourg judgments give two dates for the same grant. In two of them the dates are days apart and change nothing. In the other two they are a year apart: one gives 16 October 2018 and 16 October 2019, the other 4 December 2020 and 4 December 2021. All four are counted from the earlier date. Taking the later date would move the first file from six years or more to five to six years, and the second from four to five years to three to four years; with the second, 21 rather than 22 of the 65 dated 2025 files would have a grant date in 2018 to 2020. Deadlines are those set in the operative part; in four State orders the reasoning names a different period (three give less time in the operative part, one gives more). Counts of what the State or a judge wrote are searches for the exact wording across the 136 State orders; they do not count other wording with a similar meaning. We publish no count of how often a housing search or a personal hardship changed the deadline, because our coding of those reasons could not be reproduced. The State files are listed by their public file names in our working notes. chathome.lu figures: listings with status active and listingType rent, read-only query at 2026-10-02T11:06Z, which is the reading the counts on this page come from; a second independent checker read the same figures again at 12:42Z. Two further independent readings, at 13:53Z and 15:13Z, both found 1,360 residential records and 1,104 with a price, and the same medians (EUR 1,900; EUR 1,550 for studios; EUR 2,250 for two-bedroom homes). So one fall in the counts was observed that day, between 12:42Z and 13:53Z. A listing counts as Luxembourg when its country is LU, or when it has no country and its town is a Luxembourg commune or locality or its postcode is a Luxembourg one: 1,501 records, of which 61 commercial, office, investment-building, land, garage or parking listings are excluded, leaving 1,440 residential records and 1,173 with a numeric price (n = 1,173); 434 of the 1,501 records have no country and were placed by town name; medians and the bedroom counts are over priced listings only. See /en/prices/methodology. ## Limitations The published files are not all cases and may not be representative; the dataset pages of the publisher, the Administration judiciaire, do not say how files are selected for publication, and that selection may explain part of the difference between Diekirch's 2025 and 2026 shares. An order to leave is not a completed eviction; we found no record of a forced removal in the 168 State files. Most private claimants are pseudonymised, so we cannot say whether any private claimant brings more cases than the State. Counting choices. The total of 559 depends on how borderline files are sorted. That sorting is a judgement: three independent checks each found borderline files that the one before had not named, and another reader may place a few files differently. The Esch-sur-Alzette 2025 collection has no file dated between 15 July and 17 December 2025, so the 2025 figures for Esch-sur-Alzette and for all three courts do not cover a full year. Mixed lettings of a home with a café, a shop or a professional use are left out. Counting the 12 that are not in a judgment headed simply as a commercial lease gives 36 of 187 in Luxembourg 2025, 11 of 38 in Esch-sur-Alzette 2025, 50 of 126 in Diekirch 2025 and 23 of 134 in Luxembourg 2026, 136 of 571 in all (23.8%). Two of the 12 sit close to the commercial group: Diekirch Rép. 328/25 is headed "bail d'habitation et commercial", and in Luxembourg Rép. 1542/26, headed "bail à loyer et d'occupation sans droit ni titre", the court says it sits in commercial-lease matters. Counting also the 16 orders that the courts head as commercial leases but that concern a building combining a home and a business gives 136 of 587 (23.2%). The 17 judgments that began as a request about the time to leave and end with a dated order or removal title are counted; leaving them out gives 136 of 542 (25.1%). Named borderline files. The files below are examples of others that could be read either way, not a complete list. Left out: Luxembourg Rép. 4130/25 (a flat let under a contract called a commercial lease, for a dental practice), Rép. 3414/25 (one order ending a home lease and a commercial lease on the same building) and Rép. 1353/26 (a flat let between two companies, mainly to live in), the last two being among the 12; five orders about flats, houses or buildings with dwellings in judgments headed as commercial leases (Luxembourg Rép. 1145/25, 2540/25, 3210/25, 4114/25 and 2813/26; the use of the house in the last is not stated); and Luxembourg Rép. 3411/25 (a building whose use is not stated, let to a company under a contract called a commercial lease). Counted: Esch-sur-Alzette Rép. 1035/25 (a flat let to a person who mentions closing a practice there; unlike Rép. 4130/25, nothing in the file calls the lease commercial); Luxembourg Rép. 2109/25 (a house let to a company), Rép. 3992/25 (premises not described) and Rép. 1777/26 (published only in its corrected version); Luxembourg Rép. 2059/26 (a company and its sub-tenants ordered out of a flat after the sub-tenants had asked for more time; the court holds the company's own lease to be commercial, as in the left-out Rép. 4114/25, but here the judgment is headed as an ordinary lease case, the people ordered out live in the flat and their sub-lease is held to be a home lease); Diekirch Rép. 1139/25 (a company's flat, in a judgment that also covers a hangar), Rép. 1485/25 (a building whose use is not stated) and the Diekirch 2026 undertaking judgment; homes let to a company or an association (Diekirch Rép. 1294/25, 1366/25 and 1507/25; Luxembourg Rép. 2217/25); a room above a café (Luxembourg Rép. 3842/25) and rooms sub-let by a café operator, which held the café under a brewery sub-lease in Luxembourg Rép. 175/26 and under a lease the court calls commercial in Rép. 1710/26; and a home let together with two hangars and a barn (Luxembourg Rép. 2173/26). The widest reading found, counting every left-out file named here, gives 136 of 594 (22.9%). The narrowest, leaving out the 17 request files and the 16 counted files named here, gives 136 of 526 (25.9%). Across these readings the share stays between about 23% and 26%, which is still about one in four. In some other counted files the tenant ordered out is a company renting a flat or a house. Other limits. The 2026 files run only to September (Luxembourg), June (Esch) and August (Diekirch). 41 Diekirch files do not state the occupant's status in terms, although in at least one of them the court's reasoning treats the occupant as a person with protection; 42 files do not give the protection date, and four judgments give two dates for the same grant. The reasons judges gave were read by hand; we report exact wording and examples, not a count of reasons. The three sursis rulings come from two courts in 2025; we found none granting a sursis to an ONA resident, but a grant is recorded only as a note in the plumitif, the clerk's record of the hearing, and might not be published. The 12-month rule is taken from the ONA guide of 2022 and the pledges quoted in the judgments; we found no newer official text that restates it, and our reading of the reception law of 11 June 2026 is a search of its text, not a legal opinion. The shares of ONA residents by status are shares of people housed, not of beds, and the 98.1% occupancy rate is for the main applicants' network only. Asking rents are agency listings, not agreed rents, and were not matched to any case. Listing counts are not stable: on 2 October 2026 they fell once between readings, from 1,440 residential listings at 11:06 and 12:42 UTC to 1,360 at 13:53 and 15:13 UTC, with the same medians. The 434 listings without a country were placed by town name, and some could be same-named places across the border. The Ministry of Family, Solidarity, Living Together and Reception and the ONA were not contacted before publication and have not commented on these findings; any reply they send will be added to this page. ## Sources - Justice de paix de Luxembourg, bail collection 2025 (downloaded 2026-09-25) and 2026 (version republished by the publisher on 27 September 2026, downloaded 2026-09-28), pseudonymised judgments, data.public.lu - Justice de paix d'Esch-sur-Alzette, bail collections 2025 (downloaded 2026-10-01) and 2026 (downloaded 2026-09-25), data.public.lu - Justice de paix de Diekirch, bail collections 2025 (downloaded 2026-10-01) and 2026 (downloaded 2026-09-25), data.public.lu - ONA, Tout savoir sur l'accueil des demandeurs et bénéficiaires de protection internationale (version 19.05.2022), accessed 2026-09-27 - Government of Luxembourg, Bilan de l'année 2024 en matière d'asile, d'immigration et d'accueil (3 February 2025), accessed 2026-09-27 - Ministère de la Famille, des Solidarités, du Vivre ensemble et de l'Accueil, Rapport d'activité 2025 (June 2026), accessed 2026-09-27 - Loi du 11 juin 2026 sur l'accueil des demandeurs de protection internationale et des bénéficiaires de la protection temporaire, Mémorial A n° 285, Legilux, accessed 2026-09-27 - Loi modifiée du 21 septembre 2006 sur le bail à usage d'habitation, consolidated version applicable from 1 August 2024, Legilux, accessed 2026-09-27 - chathome.lu listings data (active residential rentals in Luxembourg), computed 2026-10-02 ## Frequently asked questions ### Can the State make people granted international protection leave ONA housing? Yes. Once the date in the occupant's signed pledge has passed, peace-court judges usually treat them as occupying without right or title. In the 168 published files from State cases about ONA housing in 2025 and 2026, departure was ordered in 136, and the State lost no departure request that was decided on its merits. ### How long do people granted protection have to leave ONA housing? The ONA guide (version of 19 May 2022) says 12 months. In the 94 State files that give the protection date, the orders came 2.1 to 7.5 years after protection. ### How much time do judges give to leave? In the 136 State cases, judges most often gave two months (60 cases). The range was one month to six months. The State usually asked for one month. Deadlines differed by court: 44 of 59 Luxembourg-court orders gave two months or less, 10 of 17 Esch-sur-Alzette orders gave one month, and in Diekirch in 2025, 32 of 50 gave three months or more. Some judges gave more time for a named hardship such as a disability, poor health or very young age; others noted a precarious situation and still gave two months. ### Can an ONA resident ask for a sursis after the judgment? In at least three published rulings, from the Esch-sur-Alzette court (24 January 2025) and the Luxembourg court (14 February and 29 August 2025), the answer was no: the sursis in articles 16 to 18 of the 2006 rental law is in chapter IV, and reception structures are covered only by chapter V. We found no published ruling granting one. Under article 17, a decision on a sursis request is only noted in the plumitif, the clerk's record of the hearing, and is open to no recourse, so a grant might not be published. Ask for enough time at the first hearing and check your own case with a legal adviser. ### Is an order to leave the same as an eviction? No. It is a court decision that authorises removal if the person does not leave by the deadline. In the 168 files from the State's cases we found no statement that a forced removal later took place; some files from other landlords' cases do record one.