Protecting Whistleblowers: Mechanisms and Safeguards
The Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act in Slovenia outlines measures to protect whistleblowers or reporting persons, safeguarding their identity and offering protection against retaliation. It prohibits revealing the identity of whistleblowers and allows them to claim compensation for any retaliatory actions. Public servants facing retaliation can request transfers to new positions, with specific timelines for action and potential additional safeguards under witness protection laws.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Mechanisms of Preventing Retaliation against Whistleblowers
Integrity and Prevention of CorruptionAct (IPCA) Republic of Slovenia, 2010 IPCA doesn t use the word whistleblowers , but instead uses the term reporting persons in line with UNCAC. Any person may report instances of corruption in a State body, local community, by a holder of public authority or other legal persons governed by public or private law, for which he believes that it contains elements of corruption. Measures of protection: measures that protect the identity of the reporting person measures that protect the reporting person against retaliation. - -
Protection of identity: - IPCA protects regardless if they request it or not; - during and after the proceedings, the identity of the reporting person is not considered public information and doesn t fall under the Access to Public Information Act (this measure also applies in cases that were forwarded to other competent state bodies); - it is forbidden to reveal the identity of a reporting person that submitted the report in good faith and had reasonable grounds to believe the submitted information was true (a fine in the range of 400 to 4000 EUR); - special protection regarding the reporting person s identity concealed reporting person . the identity of all reporting persons,
Protection against retaliation: - if the reporting persons have been subjected to retaliatory measures as a consequence of their report, they have the right to claim compensation from their employer for the unlawfully caused damage by filing a lawsuit; - the burden of proof is on the employer; - the CPC can offer assistance in establishing a causal link between the initial report and retaliatory measures.
Protection against retaliation: - if the reporting persons are public servants, and if they continue to be the focus of retaliation, making it impossible for them to continue work in their current work post, they can request that their employer transfers them to another equivalent post. The public servant's employer must ensure that the demand for transfer is met within 90 days and must inform the CPC about it; if in connection with the report of corruption, the conditions for the protection of the reporting person or his family members are fulfilled under the law on witness protection (Witness protection Act), the CPC may propose that the State Prosecutor General take urgent safeguarding measures. -
The whistleblower was an accountant in a public company, owned by (municipality), and she had been working there for 15 years. She had reported to Commission that the company ordered her several times to prepare the technical specifications of public procurements in such a way that they suited the pre-selected candidates. She also referred to one procurement in particular the purchase of a dump truck, which was still ongoing. Commission forwarded her report to the CPC. the local government the director National of Review public the The National Review
The CPC established there was an integrity breach in regards to the conduct of responsible persons in the public company, therefore it: - issued the findings with recommendations; - published the findings on its website; - forwarded the findings to the Police and the National Review Commission.
At this point, the whistleblower informed us that the director suspected that she made the report and that she had been suffering retaliation since the start of the CPC s investigation: - turning other employees against her; - colding her for mistakes that she didn t make; - removing her from work on public procurement; - threatening with dismissal. Just as the CPC officially started the procedure for protection, the wistleblower informed us she d been fired. She filed a lawsuit against her employer and asked CPC for help in establishing causal link between her report and retaliation.
The CPC had to establish: - good faith; - belief that the disclosed information is true; - retaliatory measures by the employer; - causal link between the whistleblower s report and retaliation. The CPC took into consideration: - internal report (supervisory board); - external report (National Review Commission); - veracity of information; - chronological course of events; - labour inspector. The court took the CPC s report on the established causal link into evidence. The parties settled out of court.
