One of the draft Directive’s most significant features is the shield on civil and criminal liability when the whistleblower makes a protected report. The Council’s proposal (Article 15, at 50) qualifies that there only is immunity if the whistleblower “had reasonable grounds to believe that the reporting or disclosure was necessary for revealing a breach pursuant to this Directive.”
This unprecedented new requirement would mean it is not safe to have engaged in “protected” speech. The whistleblower also must properly guess whether his or her disclosure was indispensable, and then again whether a court would agree. Otherwise, the whistleblower will be defenseless against criminal or civil prosecution.
It would be unprecedented in global whistleblower law to impose a second test for protection against retaliation – the importance of the whistleblower. To date protected speech always and only has depended on the credibility and significance of the whistleblower’s disclosure.
WIN are pleased to publish the first of three video bulletins about serious problems with the EU draft Directive on whistleblowing put together by Tom Devine and the Government Accountability Project (GAP). These videos and the accompanying text summarise key issues in the proposed directive and offer robust solutions to improve the Directive and enhance whistleblower protection in Europe.
The remaining videos will be published throughout the day so keep your eye on our website and Twitter feed!
The Directive includes a new precondition to qualify for protected speech and trigger anti-retaliation rights. It no longer will be enough to prove a reasonable belief of disclosing misconduct. The employee also must first prove that the knowledge or evidence was “lawfully acquired in the context of his or her work-related activities.” (Article 3 Definition, at 36).
This additional requirement for protection would be unprecedented in global whistleblower laws. Normally the issue is considered as part of an employer’s independent justification in the reverse burden of proof. This new structure means the whistleblower’s methods will be put on trial as the opening issue in every retaliation case. Whistleblowers would have to win that battle first, even to challenge retaliation.
WIN is supporting this campaign by the Green/EFA Group in the EU Parliament because we have a massive opportunity to end the fear, silence, loneliness and bullying that some people suffer from just telling the truth. The European Union is on the verge of enacting new legislation that would change the lives of people who reveal the truth about illegalities, corrupt practices and other dodgy dealings – otherwise known as “whistleblowers”.
The first of its kind, the new European Whistleblower Directive would oblige all EU governments to introduce minimum standards of protection for truth-tellers. These protections would include penalties for people that retaliate against whistleblowers or try to shut them up; an obligation for public and private bodies to set up channels for receiving reports and to keep the identity of the whistleblower confidential; and legal shields for whistleblowers so that, if for example they breach a confidentiality agreement, they would not be held liable for it.
06/02/19 – It is now crunch time as the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council engage in trilogue negotiations to agree the final text of the EU draft directive on the protection of whistleblowers.
WIN presents, courtesy of Tom Devine, Legal Director of the Government Accountability Project, an analysis of the European Council’s agreed position published on the 29th January 2019. This is what the Council is taking into the negotiations and it is much further away from the European Parliament’s position on the fundamental issue of protecting those who report information directly to competent authorities than we had hoped or can understand.
This Legal Brief explains exactly what the problems are and why enforcing mandatory internal reporting is as bad for business as it is for individuals who want to speak up about wrongdoing, even directly to their employers!
Not only does the European Council retain and reinforce the structural problems of mandatory internal reporting – originally included by the Commission but removed by Parliament in its proposal! – it has added its own poison pills:
restoring vulnerability to obstruction of justice by canceling the clear right to make external disclosures to government authorities immediately;
adding an unprecedented subjective test as a prerequisite for the liability shield: the whistleblower not only must prove a reasonable belief of misconduct but also that his or her specific whistleblowing was necessary to reveal it;
effectively cancelling the liability shield while adding an unprecedented prerequisite for protected speech — that evidence was lawfully obtained, not just lawfully disclosed. Significantly, this will put the whistleblower on trial in every case, having to win that battle before being able to challenge any retaliation against them for having reported the actual wrongdoing; and
finally, by imposing a subjective, unreviewable, open-ended national security loophole giving each nation the option to cancel the Directive’s public freedom of expression rights