Tráfico ilícito de migrantes

Delitos

• Facilitación de la entrada ilegal
• Facilitar la permanencia ilegal

Agravantes

• Trato inhumano o degradante (incluso para la explotación)

Trata de personas

Delitos

• Trata de personas (adultos)

Actos realizados

• Captación/contratación
• Acogida
• Recepción

Medios utilizados

• Abuso de poder o de una situación de vulnerabilidad

Fines de explotación

• Esclavitud o prácticas análogas a la esclavitud
• Servidumbre

Protección de víctimas

• Proporcionar viviendas/alojamiento

Palabras clave

• Explotación
• Trabajos o servicios forzosos
• Trata Transnacional

Arrêt N° 34/19 X

Resumen de los hechos

On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff  lodged a complaint with the Grand Ducal Police about the operators of a restaurant. The Plaintiff worked for two years in said restaurant, for about 10 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week, for a monthly salary of 500 to 600 euros. The restaurant is operated by a limited liability company controlled by the First Defendant who holds 100% of the company shares and is the sole manager of the company, managing the operation of the company together with Second Defendant. Following the filing of the Plaintiff’s complaint, the police officers went to the restaurant, whereupon the Defendants initially declared that they did not know the Plaintiff. However, during the restaurant visit, the police officers were able to recognize several of the Plaintiff's personal effects in the premises, including the Plaintiff’s  clothes in the restaurant’s cellar, together with two matrasses. It was established that the Plaintiff left his country of origin, Pakistan, after 2010, in order to go to Europe. He first applied for asylum in Hungary. However, he left Hungary to go to Germany, where he made a second asylum application, which was refused, and the Plaintiff was returned to Hungary. In 2014, the Plaintiff returned to Germany. It is still established that the Plaintiff used smugglers to whom he paid considerable sums to ensure his passage through Europe.

The Plaintiff was contacted in 2014 when he was in Stuttgart, Germany, by an acquaintance, C., who asked him if he wanted to come to Luxembourg to work in a restaurant. Subsequently, he was contacted by telephone by the restaurant owners, the Defendants, who offered to receive and employ him as a waiter in their restaurant. A few days later, in July 2014, the Plaintiff presented himself at the restaurant and started working. The First Defendant offered him a monthly remuneration of 500 euros. He was also able to sleep in the restaurant and received food and water there. The Plaintiff did not have a room, but had to sleep on the floor on a mattress in the restaurant and that he did not have a cupboard at his disposal to clean his effects. The Plaintiff was fed leftovers, receiving enough to eat, and being allowed only to drink water, except for another drink on weekends.

The Plaintiff maintained throughout the proceedings that the Defendants were aware that he was in an irregular situation in Luxembourg, that there had been no request for asylum and that the Hungarian authorities had taken his fingerprints. The Plaintiff asked repeatedly that the First Defendant declare him and get him regularized paperwork, as promised from the start of his engagement, but that the latter always found excuses and finally asked him to make a request for asylum in Luxembourg. Following an eventual asylum request, the Plaintiff would have been able to access accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees, however the accommodation was too far from his place of work and impinged on his ability to work on the hours required by his employers, leading the Defendants to request that the Plaintiff to resume living in the restaurant. The Plaintiff also stated that the First Defendant’s brother-in-law, D., also worked at the restaurant between August and November 2016. D. also allegedly had a salary of 600 euros and slept on a mattress in the restaurant. D. is an asylum seeker in Germany. The Defendants were found guilty at first instance of criminal offences including trafficking in persons, smuggling of migrants and various labor law infractions. They were further found liable in civil law for damages to the Plaintiff. A civil appeal was logged by the Plaintiff following the order of the court of first instance requiring the Defendants pay 5750 Euro in civil damages to the Plaintiff, seeking a further 29000 EUR in damages from the Defendants. A cross-appeal was logged by the Plaintiffs seeking the suspension of a supervisory order requiring the surrender of their passports. Both appeals were ruled receivable by the Court of Appeals, and both were rejected as unfounded.

Comentario y aspectos destacados

According to the Court of Appeals, Article 382-1 of the Penal Code was introduced into Luxembourg legislation by the Law of 13 March 2009 on Trafficking in Human Beings which had a dual objective of formally ratifying two international treaties, namely the Additional Protocol to the Convention of the United Nations against Transnational Organized Crime aimed at Preventing, Suppressing and Punishing the Trafficking in Persons and in Particular Women and Children and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, and to adopt penal provisions in application of these two treaties as well as in execution of the Council framework decision of 19 July 2002 on the Fight Against rafficking in Human Beings and the Sexual Exploitation of Children which had made changes to the Articles 379 et seq. of the Penal Code (Bill 5860 (ordinary session 2007-2008, opinion of the Council of State).


Luxembourg law broadly criminalizes the exploitation of a person's work or service in the form of forced or compulsory labor or service and under conditions contrary to human dignity. Indeed, it follows from the comparison of international texts and national provisions that supranational instruments include the means by which control over a person is obtained, more concretely force, duress, abduction etc. among the constituent elements of the offense, the relevant articles of the Luxembourg code disregard this element among the constituent elements of the offense, hence broadening the potential protection for victims of human trafficking by means of exploitation in forced labor.

Article 382-1 of the Penal Code disregards the constituent elements of the offense of  the means by which control over a person is obtained. It is referred to the opinion of the Council of State of October 7, 2008 within the framework of the Bill 5860 according to which “in this respect national law retains a more extensive incrimination than international law, in the sense that the Public Prosecutor, in the prosecution of the basic offense is exempted from the obligation to provide proof of the means by which control is obtained, proof of recruitment, transfer, accommodation, control etc. as well as subsequent criminal exploitation being sufficient.”


The relatively short sentences delivered against the Defendants, of 18 months imprisonement and 3 000 Euro in fines, are substancially shorter than the maximum potential punishment for traficking in persons pursuant to Article 382-1-2 of the Penal Code of 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 10000 to 50000 Euro for a completed offence and 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 5000 to 10000 Euro for attempted trafficking in persons pursuant to Article 382-1-3 of the Penal Code.

Autor:
Dylan Siry, as part of collaboration with Queen Mary University of London

Palabras clave

Hechos:
Reclutamiento
Acogida
Recepción
Medio:
Abuso de poder o de una situación de vulnerabilidad
Fines de explotación:
Esclavitud o las prácticas análogas a la esclavitud
Servidumbre
Forma de la Trata:
Transnacional

Cuestiones transversales

Responsabilidad

Responsabilidad por

• Delito consumado

Base de responsabilidad

• Intención dolosa

Responsabilidad implica

• Delincuentes principales

Delincuente/Delito

Detalles

• Ocurrió a través de uno (o más) de las fronteras internacionales (transnacional)

Países interesados

Luxemburgo

Alemania

Investigación

Incautación y decomiso

Bienes incautados

1 Samsung Laptop, 1 iPhone
 

Base jurídica

Report number 57271-24, drawn up on January 2, 2017 by the Grand-Ducal Police, Service Central SPJ
 

Observaciones

 
 

Información sobre el procedimiento

Sistema jurídico:
Derecho continental
Última sentencia judicial:
Tribunal de apelación
Tipo de Proceso:
Penal
 
 
Proceder #1:
  • Fase:
    first trial
  • Código de referencia oficial de la causa:
    Arrêt N° 1836/2018
  • Tribunal

    Título de la Tribunal

    Le tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg, Chambre Correctionnelle
     

    Localidad

  • Ciudad/Pueblo:
    Luxembourg
  • • Penal

    Descripción

    In the present case, the Defendants were charged with the violation of Articles 382-1 and 382-2 of the Penal Code, having been found to have committed the offense of trafficking in human beings by recruiting, harbouring and welcoming a person for the purpose of exploiting the work of that person in the form of work under conditions contrary to human dignity, by abusing the particularly vulnerable situation in which the Plaintiff found himself, in particular because of his illegal administrative situation and his precarious social situation. The Plaintiff was found to have been recruited through an acquaintance, C., and that the Plaintiff, and another person, D., were accommodated and received by the Defendants for the purpose of having them work in the Defendants’ restaurant.

    The reception and accommodation of the Plaintiff was conducted with a view to their exploitation in the form of work, by abusing the particularly vulnerable situation in which the victims, the Plaintiff and the so-called D. find themselves because of their irregular administrative situation, their precarious social and financial situation, and having no other source of income, being far from their country of origin, speaking none of the languages customary in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The Defendants were further charged with infringements of articles 382-4 and 382-5 of the penal code, criminalising the facilitation in the illegal entry and stay of a foreigner into the territory of the Grand Duchy, and the aggravating circumstances related there to.the Public Prosecutor accuses the defendants of having facilitated the irregular stay of the Plaintiff and of the so-called D., two Pakistani nationals, with the aggravating circumstance that they abused the particularly vulnerable situation of these two people.

    The Plaintiffs further were found to have committed the offense together, and were thus tried together. The Defendants  were found, contrary to Articles 382-4 and 382-5 of the Penal Code, to have, by direct aid, knowingly facilitated, for profit, the illegal stay of a third-country national on Luxembourg territory, with the aggravating circumstance that the offense was committed by abusing the particularly vulnerable situation in which is a person, due to his illegal or precarious administrative situation, his precarious social situation, a state of pregnancy, an illness, an infirmity or a physical or mental deficiency, in such a way that the person has in fact no other real and acceptable choice than to submit to this abuse. Further the Defendants, in the present case, were found to have, by direct aid, knowingly facilitated the illegal stay of the Plaintiff and of a so-called D., both Pakistani nationals, staying on Luxembourg territory, for the purpose of profit and in particular by recruiting  the Plaintiff in Germany through C. to operate it as a waiter in their restaurant. The Defendants further abused the particularly vulnerable situation in which the Plaintiff and a so-called D.) find themselves, because of their illegal administrative situation, their precarious social and financial situation, having no other source of income, being distant from their country of origin, not speaking any of the languages customary in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

    Furthermore, the Defendants were found to have committed criminal offences pursuant to  Article L. 212-10 of the Labour Code criminalizing those who have employed employees in the catering sector beyond the maximum limits provided for by the labour code, which provide that the average weekly working time, calculated on a reference period does not exceed 40 hours, Article L. 572-5 of the Labour Code criminalizing employers who have employed an illegally staying third-country national in circumstances where the offense in persistently repeated, relates to the simultaneous employment of a significant number of illegally staying third-country nationals, is accompanied by particularly abusive working conditions, and is committed by an employer who uses the work or the service of an illegally staying third-country national knowing that this person if the victim of trafficking in human beings. Article L. 572-2 of the Labour Code defines “particularly abusive working conditions” as follows: “working conditions, including those resulting from discrimination based on gender or on other grounds factors, in which there is a striking disproportion compared to the working conditions of the legally employed employees, having in particular an impact on the health and the security of the people, and which attacks the human dignity. Furthermore, the Defendants were found to have committed office’s pursuant to Articles L. 222-1 et seq. of the Labour Code, obliging all employers to remunerate employees at least at the legal minimum wage rate, and Article L. 222-10 of the same code criminalizing employers who have paid wages below this rate.

    In light of the gravity of the facts, the Court sentenced the Defendants to an 18-month prison sentence and a fine of 3000 euros each.

     

    Resultado

  • Veredicto:
    Culpable
  • Condenas

    Condena

    Pena de prisión:
    1 año 6 Meses
     

    Multa

    Pago

  • Cuantía:
     
    3000
    Moneda:
     
    EUR
  • Proceder #2:
  • Fase:
    first trial
  • Código de referencia oficial de la causa:
    Arrêt N° 1836/2018
  • Tribunal

    Título de la Tribunal

    Le tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg, Chambre Correctionnelle
     
    • Civil

    Descripción

    In light of the documents provided at the hearing, a civil claim was well-founded and justified as non-pecuniary damage, assessed ex aequo et bono, in the amount of 5000 euros, and the Defendants were therefore ordered jointly and severally, if not in solidum, to pay to The Plaintiff ​​the amount of 5000 euros with legal interest from the day of the request, May 15, 2018, until balance.

     

     

    Resultado

  • Veredicto:
    Otro
  • Condenas

    Condena

    Indemnización a las víctimas

    Pago

    Observaciones

    The civil plaintiff claims further a procedural compensation of 1,500 euros on the basis of article 194 Paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that it would be inequitable to allow The Plaintiff to bear all of the costs incurred by him, and decided to grant this request for up to 750 euros, thus requiring the Defendants, on the basis of the aforementioned article, to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 750 euros as procedural compensation.
     
    Proceder #3:
  • Fase:
    appeal
  • Código de referencia oficial de la causa:
    Arrêt N° 34/19 X. du 23 janvier 2019
  • Tribunal

    Título de la Tribunal

    La Cour d'appel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, dixième chambre, siégeant en matière correctionnelle
     
    • Civil

    Descripción

    By declaration of July 10, 2018 at the registry of the Luxembourg district court, the representative of the Plaintiff noted the civil appeal of a judgment no 1836/2018 rendered on June 14, 2018 by the Luxembourg District Court, sitting in correctional matters in the Public Prosecutor's case against the Defendants. The appeal was brought in the form and within the time limit prescribed by law was admissible.
    By the aforesaid judgment of June 14, 2018 the Defendants were each sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months, accompanied by a full stay as well as a fine of 3000 Euros for having, from July 2014 to December 20, 2016, in their capacity as legal manager, respectively as de facto manager of the company in question with the purpose of operating a restaurant, for being guilty of trafficking in human beings, smuggling of migrants and various breaches of the labor code, in particular by having recruited through the so-called C.), accommodated and welcomed The Plaintiff, and the so-called D.), both of Pakistani nationality, with a view to their exploitation in the form of work, for the purpose of gain and under conditions contrary to human dignity, with the aggravating circumstance that the offenses under articles 382-1, 382-2, 382-4 and 382-5 of the Criminal Code were committed by abusing the particularly vulnerable situation in which the two recruits found themselves, in particular because of their illegal administrative situation and their precarious social situation.
    In civil matters, the court gave notice to the Plaintiff ​​of its constitution as a civil party, declared that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, declared it admissible and founded for the amount of 5,000 euros. The Court ordered the Defendants to pay jointly, if not in solidum, to the Plaintiff ​​the amount of five thousand euros, in addition to legal interest and procedural compensation of 750 Euros. With regard more particularly to the merits of the civil claim, the court held that the non-pecuniary damage which the civil Plaintiff intends to obtain compensation is in direct causal relation to the offenses committed by the Defendants, damage which he assessed ex æquo et bono, in the light of the explanations and documents provided, in the amount of 5 000 Euros.
    The Plaintiff sought 29 000 Euros as compensation for moral damage suffered as a result of his "humiliation, situation of slavery suffered etc."  The Plaintiff argues that the amount of 5,000 euros awarded by the court of first instance is largely insufficient in view of the situation of slavery in which he lived for 29 months. The amount awarded by the first judges would correspond only to 372 euros per month of enslavement. According to the appellant, the amount would never have been granted if the treatment as a slave had lasted, quod non, only one month. A studio is said to have been made available to the Plaintiff by the approved assistance service for victims of human trafficking, known as H.). As part of the assessment of the damage suffered by the Plaintiff the price of the suffering as well as the long duration thereof should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the Plaintiff still claims procedural compensation of 1,500 euros for the appeal body. The Defendants conclude that the judgment undertaken in civil matters is confirmed. Their representative considers that the amount of 5000 Euros allocated by the court of first instance is sufficient. It suggests that throughout the period complained of, The Plaintiff had been housed, fed and paid. He could even, from time to time, have sent some of his money to Pakistan. There would therefore have been no slavery. He adds that the civil defendants admit their criminal fault and that they suffer the consequences. They have already paid the criminal fine.
    The Defendants requested, for their part, the lifting of the Judicial Review Order ordered on 21 December 2016 by the investigating judge as well as the restitution of their respective passports which they had handed over on December 22, 2016 at the Investigative Office in execution of the above judicial control measure. They also claim a procedural allowance of 500 Euros.
    The Court of Appeal found that a correct and detailed account of the facts not otherwise disputed to which the Court can refer, the proceedings before it having brought no new facts by report to those who were subjected to the examination of the jurisdiction of first instance.
    It appears in particular that the Plaintiff had been recruited by the Defendants as an immigrant worker, without a residence permit or work permit, that he had to work for them in abusive working conditions, so that he was not affiliated to social security, that he worked 10 hours a day for 6 or 7 days a week, for a salary paid irregularly varying between 100 Euros, 500 Euros, 600 Euros or 700 Euros per month, that he had to sleep on a mattress placed on the floor of the restaurant, that he only had to eat and drink what the Defendants wanted to give him and that he had permission to go out only by the back of the restaurant avoiding contact with other people. This situation continued for the duration of his employment. The clandestine and unworthy working conditions thus experienced on a day-to-day basis by the Plaintiff were such as to cause him moral suffering and concern for his future. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered cannot, however, constitute additional wages.
    Like the court of first instance, the Court considers that the amount of 5000 Euros constitutes fair and adequate compensation for the moral damage suffered by The Plaintiff as a result of the moral suffering he endured during the 29 months that he was in the service of the spouses the Defendants, and it is therefore necessary to confirm the civil judgment.
    With regard to the request for the release of the measure placed under judicial supervision and the request for the return of passports: It follows from the documents in the criminal file that, according to orders issued on December 21, 2016, the Defendants were placed by the investigating judge under judicial supervision, under the obligation in particular to have their passports surrendered and identity card in exchange for a receipt valid proof of identity. Under Articles 110 and 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complete or partial release of judicial review may be requested from the correctional chamber of the Court of Appeal, if an appeal has been brought on the merits. Articles 111 (2) and (3) provide that the application is lodged with the registry of the court called to rule and that it rules there urgently and at the latest within three days of filing. It follows that if the correctional chamber of the Court of Appeal is competent to hear the request for the release of the judicial review, respectively for the restitution of the passports of the Defendants the request must be declared inadmissible for not having have been introduced in the forms provided by law.
    As for procedural allowances, the Appellate Court finds that the procedural compensation of 750 Euros awarded by the first judges is also adequate, so it should be maintained. Thus, the Plaintiff is unsuccessful in his appeal, his claim for procedural compensation for the appeal proceedings is unfounded. The Defendants, further, do not justify the unfairness required by article 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, their claim for procedural compensation for the appeal proceedings is also unfounded.
    For these Reasons, the Court of Appeal, Tenth Chamber, sitting in correctional matters, ruling adversely, receives the civil appeal from the Plaintiff, says it unfounded, and confirms the judgment undertaken. The Court further declares inadmissible the requests of The Defendants for the lifting of their judicial placement measures and for the restitution of their passports, and finds the parties' respective requests for procedural compensation for the appeal proceedings were unfounded, and  condemns the Plaintiff to the costs of the intervention of the public prosecutor in process of appeal, these costs being liquidated at 31.75 Euros.
     

    Víctima / Demandantes de primera instancia

    Víctima:
    D.
    Sexo:
    Hombre
    Nacionalidad:
    pakistaní
    Nacimiento:
    positive integer value
    Acusación:
    Plaintiff 1, A.
    Sexo:
    Hombre
    Nacionalidad:
    pakistaní

    Acusado / Demandado de primera instancia

    Acusado:
    Mr. B (1)
    Sexo:
    Hombre
    Nacionalidad:
    indio
    Razonamiento jurídico:
    The First Defendant was found to have knowingly receiving and harbouring the Plaintiff and thus having trafficked him for the purpose of having him work in the Defendant’s Restaurant for compensation bellow the statutory minimum wage, and was thus sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and 3000 Euro in fines. Additionally, a Samsung Laptop was found to have been used in the commission of these crimes, and were thus confiscated. The principle of non bis in idem, as receives support in Article 60 of the Penal Code, stipulates that the charges brought pursuant to Article 222 of the Penal Code should trump the charges brought pursuant to the labour code.
    Furthermore, the Defendants were found jointly civilly liable for the payment of 5000 Euro in damages and 750 EUR in costs to the Plaintiff for having employed the latter in degrading conditions.
     
    2nd instance: The unworthy working conditions experienced on a day-to-day basis by the Plaintiff were such as to cause him moral suffering and concern for his future. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered cannot, however, constitute additional wages. Like the court of first instance, the Court considers that the amount of 5000 Euros constitutes fair and adequate compensation for the moral damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the moral suffering he endured during the 29-months that he was in the service of the Defendants. It is therefore necessary to confirm the civil judgment.
    With regard to the request for the release of the measure placed under judicial supervision and the request for the return of passports: It follows from the documents in the criminal file that, according to orders issued on December 21, 2016, the Defendants were placed by the investigating judge under judicial supervision, under the obligation in particular to have their passports surrendered and identity card in exchange for a receipt valid proof of identity. Under Articles 110 and 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complete or partial release of judicial review may be requested from the correctional chamber of the Court of Appeal, if an appeal has been brought on the merits. Article 111 (2) and (3) provides that the application is lodged with the registry of the ruling court and that it rules there urgently and at the latest within three days of filing, the public prosecutor and the 'the accused or his defender heard during their oral explanations. It follows that if the correctional chamber of the Court of Appeal is competent to hear the request for the release of the judicial review, for the restitution of the passports of the Defendants, the request must however be declared inadmissible for not having have been introduced in the forms provided by law.
    As for procedural allowances, the procedural compensation of 750 Euro awarded by the first judges is also adequate, so it should be maintained.
    The Plaintiff is thus unsuccessful in his appeal, his claim for procedural compensation for the appeal proceedings is unfounded.
    The Defendants do not justify the unfairness required by Article 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, their claim for procedural compensation for the appeal proceedings is also unfounded. Thus, the judgement at first instance is upheld.
    Acusado:
    Mrs B (2)
    Sexo:
    Mujer
    Nacionalidad:
    indio

    Cargos/Acusaciones/Decisiones

    Acusado:
    Mr. B (1)
    Acusación/Reclamación:
    Trafficking in persons
    Legislación/Código:
    Articles 382-1, 382-2 and 382-3 of the Penal Code

    Art. 382-1. (L. 9 avril 2014)

    (1)

    Constitue l’infraction de traite des êtres humains le fait de recruter, de transporter, de transférer, d’héberger, d’accueillir une personne, de passer ou de transférer le contrôle sur elle, en vue: 

    1. de la commission contre cette personne des infractions de proxénétisme, d’agression ou d’atteintes sexuelles;

    2. de l’exploitation du travail ou des services de cette personne sous la forme de travail ou de services forcés ou obligatoires, de servitude, d’esclavage ou de pratiques analogues et en général dans des conditions contraires à la dignité humaine;

    3. de la livrer à la mendicité, d’exploiter sa mendicité ou de la mettre à la disposition d’un mendiant afin qu’il s’en serve pour susciter la commisération publique;

    4. du prélèvement d’organes ou de tissus en violation de la législation en la matière;

    5. de faire commettre par cette personne un crime ou un délit, contre son gré.

    (2)

    L’infraction prévue au paragraphe 1er est punie d’une peine d’emprisonnement de trois ans à cinq ans et d’une amende de 10.000 à 50.000 euros. 

    (3)

    La tentative de commettre l’infraction visée au paragraphe 1er est punie d’une peine d’emprisonnement d’un an à trois ans et d’une amende de 5.000 à 10.000 euros. 

    (4)

    Constitue l’infraction de vente d’enfants tout acte ou toute transaction en vertu desquels un enfant est remis par toute personne ou tout groupe de personnes à une autre personne ou groupe des personnes contre rémunération ou tout autre avantage. 

    Les peines prévues à l’article 382-2 (2) s’appliquent. 

    Art. 382-2. (L. 13 mars 2009)

    (1)

    L’infraction prévue à l’article 382-1, paragraphe 1er, est punie de la réclusion de cinq ans à dix ans et d’une amende de 50.000 à 100.000 euros dans les cas suivants: 

    1. l’infraction a délibérément ou par négligence grave mis la vie de la victime en danger; ou

    2. l’infraction a été commise en abusant de la situation

    3. particulièrement vulnérable dans laquelle se trouve une personne, notamment en raison de sa situation administrative illégale ou précaire, de sa situation sociale précaire, d’un état de grossesse, d’une maladie, d’une infirmité ou d’une déficience physique ou mentale; ou

    4. l’infraction a été commise par la menace de recours ou le recours à la force ou d’autres formes de contrainte, par enlèvement, fraude, tromperie; ou

    5. l’infraction a été commise par offre ou acceptation de paiements ou d’avantages pour obtenir le consentement d’une personne ayant autorité sur la

    victime; ou

    6. l’infraction a été commise par un ascendant légitime, naturel ou adoptif de la victime ou par une personne qui a autorité sur elle ou abuse de l’autorité que lui confèrent ses fonctions; ou

    7. l’infraction a été commise par un officier ou un fonctionnaire public, un dépositaire ou un agent de la force publique agissant à l’occasion de l’exercice de ses fonctions.

    (2)

    L’infraction prévue à l’article 382-1, paragraphe 1er, est punie de la réclusion de dix ans à quinze ans et d’une amende de 100.000 à 150.000 euros dans les cas suivants: 

    1. l’infraction a été commise par recours à des violences; ou

    2. l’infraction a été commise dans le cadre d’une association de malfaiteurs ou d’une organisation criminelle au sens des articles 322 à 326 du Code pénal; ou

    3. l’infraction a été commise envers un mineur; ou

    4. l’infraction a été commise en recourant à des tortures; ou

    5. l’infraction a causé la mort de la victime sans intention de la donner.

    (3)

    Le consentement d’une victime de la traite des êtres humains n’exonère pas l’auteur ou le complice de la responsabilité pénale dans l’un des cas d’infraction ou de tentative d’infraction visés aux articles 382-1 et 382-2. 

    (4)

    Le consentement d’une victime de la traite des êtres humains ne saurait pareillement constituer dans l’un des cas d’infraction ou de tentative d’infraction visés aux articles 382-1 et 382-2 une circonstance atténuante. 

    Art. 382-3.

    (L. 13 mars 2009) Les articles 379ter, 379quater, 379quinquies, 379sexies et 379septies s’appliquent par analogie aux infractions définies au présent chapitre.

    Available: https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/legislation/lux/penal_code/livre_ii/article_382-1_-_382-3/penal_code.html?lng=en

    Acusación/Reclamación:
    Smuggling of migrants
    Legislación/Código:
    Articles 382-4 and 382-5 of the Penal Code

    Art. 382-4.

    (L. 21 juillet 2012) Toute personne qui, par aide directe ou indirecte a sciemment facilité ou tenté de faciliter l’entrée irrégulière, le transit irrégulier ou, dans un but lucratif, le séjour irrégulier d’un ressortissant de pays tiers sur ou par le territoire luxembourgeois, le territoire d’un Etat membre de l’Union européenne ou d’un Etat partie à la convention signée à Schengen le 19 juin 1990, ou le territoire d’un Etat partie au Protocole contre le trafic illicite de migrants par terre, air et mer, additionnel à la Convention des Nations Unies contre la criminalité transnationale organisée, signée à Palerme, le 12 décembre 2000, est punie d’un emprisonnement de trois à cinq ans et d’une amende de 10.000 à 50.000 euros ou d’une de ces peines seulement.

    Art. 382-5.

    (L. 21 juillet 2012) L’infraction prévue à l’article 382-4 est punie de la réclusion de cinq à dix ans et d’une amende de 50.000 à 100.000 euros dans les cas suivants:

    1. Lors u’elle a été commise par une personne qui a autorité sur la victime, ou par une personne qui a abusé de l’autorité ou des facilités que lui confèrent ses fonctions;

    2. lorsqu’elle a été commise par un officier ou un fonctionnaire public, un dépositaire ou un agent de la force publique agissant à l’occasion de l’exercice de ses fonctions;

    3. lorsqu’elle a été commise envers un mineur;

    4. lorsqu’elle a été commise en abusant de la situation particulièrement vulnérable dans laquelle se trouve une personne en raison de sa situation administrative illégale ou précaire, de sa situation sociale précaire, d’un état de grossesse, d’une maladie, d’une infirmité ou d’une déficience physique ou mentale, de manière telle que la personne n’a en fait pas d’autre choix véritable et acceptable que de se soumettre à cet abus;

    5. lorsqu’elle a été commise en faisant usage, de façon directe ou indirecte, de manoeuvres frauduleuses, de violences, de menaces ou d’une forme quelconque de contrainte;

    6. lorsque la vie de la victime a été mise en danger délibérément ou par négligence grave;

    7. lorsque l’infraction a causé une maladie paraissant incurable, une incapacité permanente physique ou psychique, la perte complète d’un organe ou de l’usage d’un organe, ou une mutilation grave;

    8. lorsque l’activité concernée constitue une activité habituelle;

    9. lorsqu’elle constitue un acte de participation à l’activité principale ou accessoire d’une association, et ce, que le coupable ait ou non la qualité de dirigeant.

    Available: https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/legislation/lux/penal_code/livre_ii/art._382-4_-_382-8/penal_code.html?lng=en

    Pena de prisión:
    1 año 6 Meses
     
    Indemnización/Pago a la víctima:
    Sí  5750  EUR 
    Acusado:
    Mrs B (2)
    Pena de prisión:
    1 año 6 Meses
     
    Multa/Pago al Estado:
        <p>3000 EUR +209.12 EUR for Trial Costs</p>  

    Tribunal

    La Cour d'appel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

    Fuentes/Citas

    Citation: Arrêt N° 34/19 X. du 23 janvier 2019 (Not. 35074/16/CD)

    Available online in French: https://anon.public.lu/Décisions%20anonymisées/CSJ/10_Chambre%20correctionnelle/2019/20190123_CA10-34a-accessible.pdf 

    version 4.0.0-build-24 2021-08-26T11:30:17.207Z