they were not the consequence of the disclosure of information.205
←46 | 47→
Another European country that has regulations on whistleblower protection is Romania. The relevant act is the Law No. 571/2004 regarding the protection of the staff of the public authorities, public institutions, and other units that notifies breaches of the law.206 This regulation is the result of actions undertaken to fight corruption in public administration. The provisions of the Law No. 571/2004 enable one the disclosure of a broad scope of wrongdoings and provide protection from retaliation. However, this protection is limited to individuals of the public sector.207 Although, private entities have the possibility of implementing solutions from the public sector in their internal regulations.208
Article 3 of the Law No. 571/2004 includes a definition of disclosure in public interest, which should be recognized as disclosing in good faith the case of unlawful activity, violation of ethical professional standards or the principles of good administration, productivity, effectivity, economy, and transparency. Not all disclosed information may be protected.209 Pursuant to Article 5 of the Law No. 571/2004, the disclosed wrongdoings may concern:
a) actions of corruptive character or actions connected to such or to ones directly related to them, frauds, breaches of responsibilities, or professional responsibilities related to the breach;
b) unlawful actions against the financial interest of the European Community;
c) practices or treatment which privileges or discriminates individuals listed in Article 2 of the Law;
d) breaking of provisions concerning incompatibilitas and the conflict of interest;
e) the abuse of material and human resources;
←47 | 48→
f) biased political activity by means of occupied office, except for people elected or appointed on political rules;
g) breaking of the law on access to information and transparency of decisions;
h) breaking of provisions concerning the public procurement and nonrefundable financing;
i) incompetence and negligence of responsibilities;
j) subjective evaluation of the personnel during the process of recruitment, selection, promotion, degradation, and dismissal;
k) breaking of administrative procedures or establishing internal procedures that are against the law;
l) issuing administrative acts or other acts in the interest of a particular group or a clientele;
m) flawed or fraudulent management of property of public authorities, public institutions, or other establishments provided in Article 2 of the Law;
n) breaking of other provisions issued in order to achieve the principle of good administration or to protect the public interest.
The provisions of the Act enable whistleblowers to choose the path of disclosing wrongdoings. It is possible to use any channel in all circumstances.210 Their register was included in Article 6 of the Law No. 571/2004. Namely, it is possible to disclose information:
– directly to the supervisor of a person who broke the law;
– to the head of a public authority, institution, or budget unit, in which the person who violated the law is employed or in which an illegal practice was disclosed, even if the author of the disclosure cannot be identified;
– to a disciplinary committee or another similar body within the public authority;
– to judicial bodies;
←48 | 49→
– to bodies responsible for detecting and examining conflicts of interest and discrepancies;
– to a parliamentary committee;
– to the mass media;
– to professional bodies, trade unions, sector organizations; or
– non-governmental organizations.
However, the literature indicates that – despite the lack of indication of the order of using the abovementioned channels – the initial exhaustion of internal ways of disclosure seems to be an element that demonstrates the good faith of whistleblowers.211 On the other hand, disclosing information about wrongdoings directly to the media – instead of the bodies proper for their resolution – may indicate the lack of whistleblowers’ good faith.212 The Law No. 571/2004 lists a number of principles of whistleblower protection in public interest. Among other things, the list includes the principle of liability, according to which the violation of law disclosed by whistleblowers must be supported by information or proofs concerning the committed act. On the other hand, the principle prohibiting the abuse of sanctions towards the person disclosing the violation of law constitutes that such a person cannot be submitted to unfair sanctions or be more severely penalized for other disciplinary misconducts. Whereas, the principle of good leadership constitutes that employees are encouraged to disclose in public interest in order to improve the administration potential and to increase the prestige of the public authorities, public institutions, and other entities specified in the Law No. 571/2004. The principle of good faith is also rather significant for whistleblowers, in accordance with which a person, who is an employee of public authorities, institutions, or another entity specified in the Law, and who discloses an action which constitutes a violation of rights, is guaranteed protection if they believe that such an action indeed occurred and that it was unlawful. The disclosure made in public interests uses the presumption of good faith unless it is disproved. Moreover, upon the request of the whistleblower, against whom began disciplinary proceedings as a result of the disclosure of information, the disciplinary committee or any similar ←49 | 50→body within the organizational structure of the public authorities has the obligation to invite the press and a representative of a trade union or professional body. The disciplinary committee has the obligation to provide the whistleblower with protection by means of concealing their identity if any indicated person is their supervisor or has the power of control over the whistleblower. Moreover, if the whistleblower acted in good faith, the court may decide on the invalidity of the disciplinary or administrative sanctions applied towards them in the scope of retaliation actions undertaken due to his activity.
Slovenia has no act devoted exclusively to the protection of whistleblowers. Moreover, the provisions of the Slovenian labor law do not provide specific protection for people who disclose the perceived wrongdoings.213 However, the protection of whistleblowers is inscribed in the anti-corruption activities of the state. The main act concerning the discussed issue is the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act of 2010.214 This Act covers a broad scope of good manners recognized in the international arena in the field of whistleblower protection. Its provisions regulate such issues as the disclosure of wrongdoings, the guarantee of identity protection for whistleblowers, definitions of illegal and unethical actions or sanctions in a case of the violation of the whistleblower protection. This regulation does not provide the obligation to make disclosures of perceived wrongdoings nor the financial rewards for such actions.215
Article 1 of the Integrity
