Luxembourg City, February 2026 — An asylum seeker’s complaint against his own lawyer has caused a stir in Luxembourg and once again raised questions about how the country’s immigration and asylum system is being handled. Interestingly, the lawyer accused of professional misconduct and failing to properly represent his client is also a politician not from a right-wing party, but from the LSAP, Luxembourg’s socialist party. LSAP, according to its website, claims to work for equality and social justice in Luxembourgish society. This recent case now raises serious questions about who is truly protecting human rights and the welfare of vulnerable populations.
The socialist, activist and by profession lawyer now facing allegations of misconduct is Luxembourgish lawyer Max Leners from Leners – Avocat à la Cour. The allegations concern professional misconduct in his representation of an asylum case, raised by his own former client.
To protect the victim’s identity, Helvilux is not disclosing complaintant name. However, this case is particularly significant because it highlights ongoing issues in Luxembourg’s asylum and refugee system, exposing deep structural problems.
The victim arrived in Luxembourg from another European country where, as he claims, he was mistreated and harassed. Contrary to what some readers might assume, he did not flee from a financially poor EU country seeking a better life in Luxembourg. In fact, he came from one of the richest countries in Europe, even wealthier than Luxembourg.
The victim is a former journalist and activist who exposed powerful billionaires and corrupt companies in his country of origin. As a result, he was persecuted and tortured, leaving him with no choice but to seek safety abroad. He first applied for international protection in that country, only to discover that the corrupt businessmen and companies he had exposed back at home had headquarters there in Europe. There, he and his family faced systemic mistreatment, policy brutality, and degrading, inhumane treatment.
While seeking justice, the victim uncovered a major migration-related scandal involving large companies with direct links to the UK. Facing ongoing harassment and injustice, he ultimately came to Luxembourg to apply for international protection and to expose wrongdoing in the system he encountered.
Now comes the interesting part. Under the Dublin Regulation, if an asylum seeker has already submitted a refugee claim in one EU member state, that member state is generally responsible for examining the case. However, there is an important exception: the regulation can only be overridden if the applicant can provide evidence that they were mistreated in the host country.
In this case, Luxembourg was responsible for deciding whether the victim could remain in the country and have his asylum claim fully examined including the mistreatment he experienced in the previous host country or whether his case should be rejected under the Dublin Regulation and he should be sent back to responsible member state.
The victim alleges that his former lawyer, Max Leners, who was appointed by the Luxembourg Bar Association to represent him, failed from the very beginning to properly present and argue critical evidence concerning his claims of state persecution and inhumane treatment in host country.
Speaking with Helvilux media, the victim provided extensive documentation demonstrating the state-led persecution he and his family suffered in the host country where he first applied for asylum. The documents, reviewed by Helvilux, clearly indicate violations of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are also relevant for constitutional protections under Luxembourg law.
Despite this, the complainant asserts that Max Leners “remained passive” and failed to develop the necessary legal arguments, which ultimately resulted in the rejection of his asylum application. He also raises concerns about potential external influence on his case, emphasizing the urgency of a disciplinary review.
The victim told Helvilux, “I am not here for a better life. I am in Luxembourg to show how my host country mistreats asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. Luxembourg is obliged to examine these important details during the Dublin interview so that my host country can improve. But when my own lawyer, provided by the Luxembourg Bar Council, does not professionally handle my case and lies to me, breaking my trust, how will any improvement happen in my host country? This is not just my personal problem today, reform in the migration sector is needed. The way Mr. Leners betrayed me, how many more innocent asylum seekers face the same situation? That is an important question.”
As a result, he submitted a formal complaint to the Luxembourg Bar Council and also filed a civil claim against Mr. Leners and request for investigation.
The victim also provided Helvilux with documents and emails he had sent to both the Ministry and Mr. Leners. These documents clearly show that the applicant submitted all necessary evidence and arguments, raising serious questions as to why Mr. Leners failed to present them to the Ministère des Affaires intérieures (authority response for asylum cases).
Today, there is a global tendency to blame right-wing politicians for refugee and migrant injustices. But what if a socialist quietly acts in the same way? This case is a striking example of how Luxembourg’s migration and refugee system can be manipulated, eroded by lies and undermined by distrust.
“I do have opportunity to do appeal which i will do to tribunal court but this situation occured because of my former lawyer actions. More appeal more court fees and more pending cases to Tribunal court which is a pure waste of Luxembourg tax payers money.” Victim said.
Victim provided Helvilux with the decision order he received from the Ministry of the Interior. The order stated that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had made any arguments regarding the mistreatment he suffered in his host country. However, emails and other documented evidence available to Helvilux clearly show that the victim did present these arguments, while his lawyer remained silent. This discrepancy points to a potential scandal within the Ministry of the Interior and the asylum sector. Essentially, this case highlights how asylum cases are being not properly examined in Luxembourg and may be treated more as a business model were private companies earn profit from providing tenders and contractors in asylum centers than as a genuine effort to improve outcomes for asylum seekers and improvement in other member states under the Dublin Regulation and examination.
Experts note that all EU member states including Switzerland and Norway respect the Dublin Regulation. However, in cases where an asylum seeker has been mistreated or had their human rights violated, the current member state must examine the claim to document the abuse and ensure corrective measures. Cases like this provide an opportunity for Luxembourg to conduct a detailed examination, understand the types of mistreatment occurring in other member states, and implement improvements. A notable example is Italy and Greece: for several years, deportations to Italy and Greece were suspended due to systemic problems in its asylum system. After multiple cases were examined in different EU member states, reforms were implemented and deportations to Italy are now proceeding under better conditions.
When Helvilux asked the victim whether he had any allegations against the Ministry of the Interior, he responded, “When my own lawyer betrays me, why should I even blame the Ministry?”
The victim was accompanied by a local EU citizen during his appointment with Max Leners office. Speaking to Helvilux on the condition of anonymity, the witness said, “The victim’s case was not easy, he is not here for job or European good life dream, but Mr. Leners finished the meeting in just 10–15 minutes. At the time, I was unsure about him, and now everything is clear to me. This is dangerous for our democracy, migration sector and for vulnerable populations who are seeking protection and basic human rights in Luxembourg and in Europe.”
Helvilux also contacted the President of the Luxembourg Bar Council for comment, but as of the publication of this report, no response had been received.
The victim stated, “I do not want to live in Luxembourg. I want to return to my host country, but I was mistreated and inhumanly treated there by state. I need assurances that my family and I will not be mistreated again. I need assurance that me and my family will not be forcibly deported to my country of origin, where I fear I could be killed by leaders of the ruling political party and their corrupt business and criminal associates. I am only asking Luxembourg to examine whether my host country will respect the principle of non-refoulement. That is my only request. Instead of providing that assurance, Luxembourg is avoiding its responsibility. Lawyers like Mr. Leners make it easier for the immigration authorities to issue negative decisions against vulnerable asylum seekers.”
He further questioned whether Mr. Leners, a member of the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP), acts as an independent lawyer or effectively facilitates decisions that benefit the Luxembourg immigration authorities. “I need answers. I need accountability,” he said.
While preparing this article, Helvilux attempted to contact Max Leners for comment. In response, he stated that he cannot comment on current or former clients, that he no longer represents the complainant, and that he is not aware of any lawsuit filed against him. He also requested that no statements regarding his office or himself be published without written consent.
Interesting the socialist and activist Mr. Leners who on public and media speaks about freedom of speech, do critics to other politicians saying to Helvilux not to publish without written consent.
Helvilux while doing more research on Mr. Leners understand that LSAP Political party member, his activity is more as a legal analysis in the field of housing. As per LSAP in there pressnote of 5 November 2024, Max Leners is a trained jurist and lawyer. That time in 2024, party proposed Max Lenners to fill a vacant post in Luxembourg’s de facto upper chamber, after Christophe Schilz, another LSAP member, left to become Luxembour’s ambassador to Italy. But the council’s members decided to plump for 64-year-old Georges Kohn, the vice-president of the Social Security Arbitration Tribunal. Kohn does not have any party affiliation. That time Fellow MP Francine Closener suggested on X social media platform, that the State Council must be afraid of a “young, critical voice from the LSAP.”
Therefore this once again makes everyone think If Mr. Leners as LSAP claims he is a trained Jurist and lawyer then why does he coundnt represent the asylumseeker basically his client when most of the arguments and evidence were already provided. Therefore this shows something is a problem here.
Also another important point is, when Mr. Leners is expert in field of housing then why vulnerable population asylumseekers asylum and dublin cases were given to him. Regarding this once we receive comment from Bar council of Luxembourg that also will publish for Helvilux readers.
Victim added, In my case I am a educated and activist background but what about those vulnerable asylumseeker who cant even read or write or not familiar with European law. Apart from keeping blindly faith on state provided lawyer they dont have any other option. Therefore investigation on this matter have to be done because tax payers money is being spend while recruiting a lawyer as mostly in most of the asylum cases applicants get free legal aid and the fees to lawyer is being paid by the state. Therefore investigation should happen till now how many cases Leners took related to asylum matter and how many have this kind of rejection result and need to check is there any kind of same pattern being used each time were cases are first rejected in lower court and then being accepted in higher court. This is pure harrasement with vulnerable population in luxembourg.
Helvilux asbl founder Herr. KAMATH said, When our Helvilux media respectfull ask him to clarify the matter he avoid to give answer and said to Helvilux not to publish without written consent. Interesting that he also sometimes write investigative and research articles. Some years before he wrote a Documentation and Analysis titled as Das politische ABC des Luc Frieden in which he explains the political and social environment at the time, including public criticism and civil society responses, which as per him Frieden largely ignored. He compiles numerous examples where Frieden’s policies and actions as Justice Minister especially regarding asylum seekers were harsh, inhumane, or legally questionable. Now when he is lawyer of vulnerable population what difference he is doing. Then isnt its a hypocrysy of Leners?
The complaintant requests the barreau luxembourg to Open a formal investigation into Leners’ professional conduct and Review the compensation paid to Leners under legal aid provisions to determine whether it was justified.
Complaintant, who is currently residing in Luxembourg, expressed his trust in the Bar Association to handle the matter “with the seriousness and urgency it requires.”
This case raises broader questions about the protection of vulnerable asylum seekers and the accountability of legal representatives under Luxembourg’s professional and ethical standards.
(This article is written by Editor-in-Chief Mr. KAMATH Mahesh on the basis of facts and evidence . The editor assumes full responsibility for its content and any civil claims arising from it.)
Helvilux does not receive any subsidies or financial assistance from the governments of Luxembourg or Switzerland to support its journalism work. HELVILUX Media is an independent media outlet run by the non-profit organization Helvilux asbl in Luxembourg. To support our work with a donation, click here.
