p. 14.
25 M. A. Nowicki, Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka. Wybór orzeczeń 2011, Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa 2012, p. 391.
26 In 2003, in a widely reported speech, the President of Moldavia emphasized the need to fight corruption and called upon law enforcement agencies not to give in to pressure from bureaucrats.
27 Ploszka, “Ochrona,” p. 15.
28 Nowicki, Europejski, p. 391.
29 Ploszka, “Ochrona” p. 15.
30 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms drew up by the Council of Europe and signed on November 4, 1950; Dziennik Ustaw 61.284/1993.
31 Convention for the Protection.
32 Kobylińska, Folta, Sygnaliści; R. Hryniewicz, K. Krak, Sygnaliści w organizacji. Jak skutecznie wdrożyć system sygnalizowania nieprawidłowości?, Must Read Media, Warszawa 2019; D. Głowacka, A. Ploszka, M. Sczaniecki, Wiem i powiem. Ochrona sygnalistów i dziennikarskich źródeł informacji, Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka, Warszawa 2016; Ł. Kobroń, “Czy Polskę czeka era ‘etycznych donosów?’ Społeczno-prawne aspekty działania whistleblowera,” Zeszyty Naukowe Towarzystwa Doktorantów UJ. Nauki Społeczne, 10/2015, Towarzystwo Doktorantów UJ, Kraków, pp. 81–92.
33 Głowacka, Ploszka, Sczaniecki, Wiem, p. 9.
34 Głowacka, Ploszka, Sczaniecki, Wiem, p. 9
35 A. Wojciechowska-Nowak, Ochrona sygnalistów w doświadczeniu sędziów sądów pracy. Raport z badań, Warszawa 2011.
Chapter I Whistleblower Protection in Selected Legislatures
Currently, there are many legal regulations in the world that are comprehensively or at least in part relate to the protection of whistleblowers. More and more countries have recently adopted special legislation to protect whistleblowers, example being Italy or France. We can observe a different approach to the issue in each country. Among other things, this is due to the historical experience of individual countries. Many European countries have experienced totalitarian regimes in the past, so it is not surprising that their citizens still feel uncomfortable with any form of disclosure.36 These countries include Poland, whose legislation on the protection of whistleblowers is discussed later in this paper. Not without significance are also cultural factors that occur in individual countries. The literature indicates that all forms of “snitching” are negatively perceived, for instance, in Italy.37
The following analysis covers the legal regulations concerning the protection of whistleblowers in selected countries around the world, i.e. the USA, the United Kingdom, Romania, Slovenia, Ireland, Italy, and France. Moreover, the analysis presents the general assumptions of legal protection in this field adopted in several other countries.
←19 | 20→
1.2 Whistleblower Protection in Selected Legislatures around the World
1.2.1 The United States of America
In the United States of America, there is an elaborate system of legal protection for people who report irregularities.38 As the crime rate in accounting and corporate governance increased, the US government tended more to ensure the protection of whistleblowers. The issues of entities such as Enron and WorldCom generated interest in whistleblowers’ activities among the public and, consequently, among politicians. However, the literature indicates that despite the benefits whistleblowers bring to society, their protection in the USA remains an “inconsistent legislative patchwork.”39 Let us note that there are many state and federal laws about reporting irregularities, which vary significantly.40 However, laws in this field often interact with each other and overlap at the state and federal levels.41 There is no single act that comprehensively covers all whistleblowers’ activities throughout the country, in both public and private sectors regardless of the sector in which they operate. Among the most important acts that protect whistleblowers in the USA are The False Claims Act42 (1863) and the ←20 | 21→Whisteblower Protection Act43 (1989), which mainly refers to the public sector, along with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act44 (2002) and the Dodd-Frank Act45 (2010), which refer to the private sector.46
Besides strictly jurisdictional solutions, institutions also conduct activities47 that result, for instance, in the establishment of the National Whistleblowing Center in 1988. It operates in the whole USA and seeks public support and legal aid for people reporting violations.48 Moreover, there is the Office of Special Counsel,49 which assists whistleblowers who work in state agencies.50
Due to the highly complex system of protection for whistleblowers in the USA, it would be impossible to analyze all the legislation in this area. For the purposes of this study, the following chapter contains only a general overview of the most important legal regulations in this field.
The starting point for the development of whistleblower protection in the USA is the False Claims Act, adopted by Congress on March 2, 1863. It is also known as the Lincoln Law. It is a federal law that encourages disclosure of irregularities.51 This regulation is considered to have had recently the greatest impact on the protection of whistleblowers in the USA.52 Originally, the law was a response to speculations of military contractors during the Civil War who tried to deceive the government, for example by sending ←21 | 22→boxes of sawdust instead of weapons or repeatedly selling the same horse to the cavalry of the armed forces.53 The Act authorized the citizens aware of such practices to take measures against such deceivers. The provisions of the Act underwent several modifications since 1863. Significant changes appeared in 1986 under the False Claims Reform Act of 1986.54 Among others, the provisions aimed at facilitating cash recovery procedures for whistleblowers and, thus, encouraging more frequent reporting of fraudulent irregularities committed by government contractors.55 It is worth noting that once the government recognized the success of the federal law, many states enacted similar regulations to combat local government fraud and reward whistleblowers.
The False Claims Act allows anyone aware of fraud against the government to file a lawsuit on their behalf. A claim brought under this Act by an individual whistleblower – also referred to as a relator56 – is known as a qui tam claim. The concept of the qui tam dates back to the Middle Ages and comes from the Latin phrase “Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro seipse,” which means “the one who sues in this case for both the king and
