PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS: BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTEREST

Abstract

In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector.