Whistleblowers, and their cooperation with journalists, constitute a key element in preventing wrongdoings and protecting public interests. This contribution examines how they are protected in the recent Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the Protection of Persons Reporting on Breaches of Union Law. It highlights that the final wording of the Directive still raises a number of potential concerns. The legislative process behind the Directive is outlined, illustrating the lack of consensus between the European Parliament and the Council during its drafting procedure. It is furthermore explained how the Directive aims to protect individuals from suffering retaliation in cases where they report violations of EU law. Finally, common criticisms regarding certain solutions such as the sectoral and tiered approach are addressed. These issues will have an effect on the whistleblowers’ motivation in raising the alarm, thereby diminishing their role as a journalist source.
BallanEJ (2017) Protecting whistleblowing (and not just whistleblowers). Michigan Law Review116(3): 475–500.
2.
‘Becker v Norway’ (2017) Case no. 21272/12. European Court of Human Rights.
3.
BirchJDyerJPasosM, et al. (2015) The State of Whistleblower & Journalist Protections Globally: A Customary Legal Analysis of Representative Cases. Washington, DC: American University School of International Service.
4.
BonitoAJTitusSLGreeneAM, et al. (2012) Preparing whistleblowers for reporting research misconduct. Accountability in Research19(5): 308–328.
5.
BootER (2019) The feasibility of a public interest defense for whistleblowing. Law and Philosophy39: 1–34.
6.
‘Bucur and Tomav Romania’ (2013) Case no. 40238/02. European Court of Human Rights.
7.
CarsonAFarhallK (2018) Understanding collaborative investigative journalism in a ‘post-truth’ age. Journalism Studies19(13): 1899–1911.
8.
ColemanG (2019) How has the fight for anonymity and privacy advanced since Snowden’s whistle-blowing?Media, Culture & Society41(4): 565–571.
9.
Council of Europe (2014) Recommendation Cm/rec (2014)7 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Protection of Whistleblowers. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16807096c7 (accessed 17 December 2019).
10.
De BurghH (2000) Investigative Journalism: Context and Practice. London: Routledge.
11.
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. Official Journal of the European Union.
12.
DouradoAP (2018) Debate: whistle-blowers in tax matters: not public enemies. Intertax46(5): 422–426.
13.
EldridgeSA (2019) Hero or anti-hero? Journalists and their stories. Journalism Practice13(8): 890–894.
European Court of Auditors (2018) Opinion No 4/2018 Concerning the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Persons Reporting on Breaches of Union Law, 2018/C 405/01. Available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47282 (accessed 17 December 2019).
European Parliament (2018) Draft European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Persons Reporting on Breaches of Union Law. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0398_EN.html (accessed 17 December 2019).
19.
GeorgiadouG (2018) The European Commission’s proposal for strengthening whistleblower protection. Eucrim: The European Criminal Law Associations’ Forum3(3): 166–169.
20.
GivatiY (2018) Of snitches and riches: optimal IRS and SEC whistleblower rewards. Harvard Journal on Legislation55(1): 105–142.
21.
‘Goodwin v United Kingdom’ (1996) Case no. 17488/90. European Court of Human Rights.
22.
‘Guja v Moldova’ (2008) Case no. 14277/04. European Court of Human Rights.
23.
‘Heinisch v Germany’ (2011) Case no. 28274/08. European Court of Human Rights.
24.
JordanT (2019) Does online anonymity undermine the sense of personal responsibility?Media, Culture & Society41(4): 572–577.
25.
LoyensKVandekerckhoveW (2018) Whistleblowing from an international perspective: a comparative analysis of institutional arrangements. Administrative Sciences8(3): 30–46.
26.
‘Marchenko v Ukraine’ (2009) Case no. 4063/04. European Court of Human Rights.
ParkHBlenkinsoppJOktemMK, et al. (2008) Cultural orientation and attitudes toward different forms of whistleblowing: a comparison of South Korea, Turkey, and the UK. Journal of Business Ethics82(4): 929–939.
32.
‘Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v Netherlands’ (2010) Case no. 38224/03. European Court of Human Rights.
33.
SchützeR (2018) An Introduction to European Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Senčur PečekD (2016) Protection of persons reporting corruption and other whistleblowers in the Republic of Slovenia. In: ThüsingGForstG (eds) Whistleblowing – A Comparative Study. London: Springer, pp. 263–278.
35.
TitlandPS (2019) It’s all in the game: journalism, whistleblowing and democracy under the rules of the global economy. In: KrøvelRThowsenM (eds) Making Transparency Possible: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 181–208.
VandekerckhoveW (2016) Freedom of expression as the ‘broken promise’ of whistleblower protection. La Revue des Droits de l’Homme10: 1–17.
38.
VandekerckhoveWUysTRehgMT, et al. (2014) Understandings of whistleblowing: dilemmas of societal culture. International Handbook on Whistleblowing Research3: 37–70.
