Minors detained at Schrassig: beyond the number of places

The cumulative figure reported for Schrassig is different from a snapshot of those present at a particular time. For minors, the response also depends on care, supervision and safeguards tailored to their age.

According to comments by Ombudsman Claudine Konsbruck reported by RTL on 10 November, 41 minors have been detained at Schrassig since the beginning of 2026, compared with 28 for the whole of 2025. Five were there at the time of her statement on RTL Radio. These figures describe two different realities: a cumulative total over a period and the number present at a given moment. The first figure already exceeds the one reported for the whole of the previous year; on its own, it does not tell us how many suitable places are needed.

The concern, then, goes beyond the question of available beds. It is about whether a minor can be accommodated in a setting designed for their age and needs, and which provides the safeguards that accompany any deprivation of liberty.

Counting people does not measure accommodation capacity

The figure of 41, reported by RTL, does not mean that 41 minors were locked up at the same time, or that they were all convicted. The report does not specify whether these are distinct individuals or whether it may include repeat placements. The five present at the time of the statement, by contrast, are a snapshot. Adding or comparing these figures without taking account of their period and unit would give a misleading picture of the situation.

The location also matters. Schrassig houses adult prisoners. Uerschterhaff, another facility described by the Ombudsman as being at full capacity, is reserved for people in pre-trial detention, that is, before a final judgment. This situation does not amount to a conviction. The overcrowding in these prisons does not, on its own, tell us which place would be suitable for a young person or what services would be needed.

Konsbruck also cited UniSec, the security unit at the State Socio-Educational Centre in Dreiborn, which can accommodate 12 people. This capacity does not necessarily mean that 12 places are available at any given time. Nor does a specialised unit automatically meet the needs of a young person who requires particular therapeutic or psychiatric care.

A suitable place requires more than a building

In a statement published on 27 February 2026 following the emergency placement of a 14-year-old girl at the Luxembourg Prison Centre, the Ombudsman and OKAJU, the Ombudsman fir Kanner a Jugendlecher, linked the lack of a place in Dreiborn to a wider problem: a shortage of suitable options and insufficient timely access to child and adolescent psychiatry, both in hospital and on an outpatient basis.

The two institutions made three recommendations: prohibit the placement of children and adolescents in adult prisons, create secure therapeutic and forensic units suited to their needs, and sustainably increase capacity in child and adolescent psychiatry. They also called for better coordination between institutions, to organise care more effectively and prioritise alternatives that do not deprive young people of their liberty.

These proposals address different needs. A secure unit may be necessary in certain situations; psychiatric follow-up may fall under another type of service; a non-custodial alternative specifically seeks to avoid confinement when it is not necessary. Grouping them all under the label of “new places” would obscure differences in purpose, supervision and care.

The law sets safeguards, not a number of beds

Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out a common framework. Deprivation of liberty must be lawful, used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible period. A detained child must be treated with dignity and in conditions appropriate to their age. As a general rule, they must be separated from adults, unless their best interests justify another arrangement, and be able to maintain contact with their family, subject to exceptions. They are also entitled to prompt access to legal assistance or any other appropriate assistance, and to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a competent authority, with a prompt decision on that challenge.

This framework helps explain why a separate place is not enough to define an appropriate response: age, needs, family ties and access to assistance also matter. On the basis of the publicly available figures alone, it does not allow any conclusion to be drawn about each of the placements mentioned.

The future facility does not replace immediate responses

A director has been appointed for the future juvenile prison, RTL reported. But the Ombudsman said that its construction was far from complete. No opening date was announced in the report. The appointment marks a project milestone; it does not, on its own, establish an opening date.

Konsbruck also referred to the semi-open prison at Givenich, which has 115 places and had more than 50 vacant at the time of her statement, according to the report. She suggested examining how it might be used more effectively or allocated for specific purposes, particularly for women or minors. This is a proposal, not proof that these places can immediately accommodate young people: allocation depends on the setting, supervision and needs involved.

The 10 November warning thus sets the number of minors concerned alongside different accommodation capacities, but it is not simply a question of volume. The key point of reference is the purpose of each response: detention, educational support, specialised care or a solution without deprivation of liberty. It is at this level that the recommendations of the Ombudsman and OKAJU make sense.