National Whistleblower Law: Law on Whistleblowing
Enacted: October 2016
Scope of Law: The law requires private entities with more than 100 employees and public entities with more than 80 employees to establish internal whistleblower reporting units, as well as procedures for protection against retaliation.
Retaliation Cases: Our research did not find any publicly reported case data under this law or reports on whistleblower disclosures
Number of Disclosures: See Retaliation Cases above.
National Whistleblower Law: Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (‘PIDA’)
Enacted: 2013
Scope of Law: Exclusively protects federal government employees and contractors.
Retaliation Cases: We found three retaliation cases under PIDA. Of the three cases, two whistleblowers lost on the merits and one settled. In the two cases where the court rendered a decision, the window from commencement to decision was 248 and 1,058 days (the latter involved a self-represented complainant in poor health, exacerbating the delay). Notably, in both cases, the whistleblowers were ordered to pay the opposing party’s costs. Section 18 of PIDA precludes an order for costs unless the court is satisfied that the applicant instituted the proceeding vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or that the applicant’s unreasonable act or omission caused another party to the proceeding to incur the costs.
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Treasury Laws Amendment to the Corporations Act 2019 (Cth)
Enacted: 2019
Scope of Law: Significantly strengthened protection for private sector employees found in the Corporations Act 2001.
Retaliation Cases: As these amendments were not introduced until 2019, they are excluded from this portion of the study.
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Public Interest Information Disclosure Act 2011
Enacted: June 2011
Scope of Law: The law protects any person who disclosures public interest information to a competent authority.
Retaliation Case Decisions: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Law on the Protection of Persons Who Report Corruption in Institutions
Enacted: 2014
Scope of Law: The law protects public sector whistleblowers.
Retaliation Cases: Bosnia and Herzegovina’s law is unusual in granting pre-emptive protection to employees before retaliation has occurred.83 Employees can apply for pre-emptive protection from APIK, which has 30 days to respond. This status legally prevents a state institution from retaliating against an employee who has reported corruption under the law.
Number of Disclosures: Our research found decisions in three cases. However, we were unable to find and analyse court decisions, and ultimately cannot verify that the whistleblowers brought their claims under the statute. Of the three cases identified independently, all whistleblowers won. In one, the whistleblower was awarded €15,000 in damages. In another decision, the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight Against Corruption (APIK) ordered reinstatement. To obtain protection, employees must prove a probable connection between their report and the adverse action taken against them. The burden of proof falls on the employer to show the adverse action was lawful and justified.
National Whistleblower Law: Whistleblowing Act
Enacted: December 9, 2016
Scope of Law: The law protects any person who makes a disclosure of impropriety to a competent authority.
Retaliation Case Decisions: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, SC, 2005 c 46
Enacted: November 2005
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Case Decisions: Our research found eight whistleblower retaliation cases on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal’s online database. In the eight cases, three complaints were from the same case and controversy; all three complainants settled. Only two out of eight cases received a decision on the merits. In both instances, the tribunal ruled against the whistleblower.
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: La Loi Sapin II (No 2016-1691)
Enacted: December 2016
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: Our research found decisions in two retaliation cases. Both cases lost. Both claimants worked in the public sector.
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Whistleblowers Act, 2006
Enacted: October 2006
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Act CLXV of 2013 on Complaints and Public Announcements
Enacted: January 2014
Scope of Law: The act provides anonymity for whistleblowers and enables the submission of complaints electronically using a designated reporting channel, which is operated by the country’s fundamental rights commissioner (the ‘ombudsman’).
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: Our research did not find any reported case decisions under this law. According to an OECD report, since 2014 the ombudsman has received around 350 disclosures each year. However, the majority were unrelated to allegations of offences, such as landlord-tenant conflicts. Only about two per cent involved corruption. According to the ombudsman’s reports from 2014–2018, the ombudsman received 1,616 whistleblower disclosures. Although this indicates high utilisation of the reporting mechanism, unfortunately there was a lack of reporting on the results of these disclosures.
National Whistleblower Law: Protected Disclosures Act 2014
Enacted: July 2014
Scope of Law: The PDA provides protection to whistleblowing employees across all sectors, both public and private.
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: Our research found two case decisions. Of the two cases, both lost: one on the merits and one on procedural grounds. There was a further case not filed by whistleblowers but rather the Director of Corporate Enforcement, who challenged the company’s alleged breaches of confidentiality and sought an order from the court appointing inspectors to investigate whether or not the company breached the PDA when the whistleblowers’ identities were revealed. The court ruled in favour of the director.
National Whistleblower Law: Protection of Employees (Exposure of Offences of Unethical Conduct and Improper Administration) Law 5757-1997, Protection of Workers (Disclosure of Offences and Harm to Integrity or to Proper Administration) Law (Amendment No 2), 5768-2008
Enacted: 1997, June 2008
Scope of Law: This law protects private and public sector whistleblowers; The amendment was designed to further protect workers who report violations of the law and ethics by strengthening appropriate civil and criminal enforcement measures. The amendment authorises the imposition of a no-fault statutory fine, up to a specified ceiling, on a person who violates the law. The labour court can also impose a punitive fine in an amount not exceeding 50 times the amount of the ceiling, depending on the severity of the violation or the relevant circumstances, including the employer's behaviour and its repetitiveness. The amendment further imposes a criminal penalty of imprisonment or a fine on an employer who harms the conditions of employment or fires an employee in violation of the law. The State Comptroller Law granted the ombudsman special quasi-judicial authority to protect whistleblowers in public service.
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: Our research did not find any publicly reported court case decisions from the regional labour courts. However, according to the ombudsman’s report in 2018, 44 retaliation complaints were filed by employees, and of the 22 complainants whose cases the ombudsman investigated, 50 per cent received remedies (or 25 per cent of filed retaliation complaints). Five of the prevailing whistleblowers received permanent protection orders, and 17 settled their case or the ombudsman decided their case (the report does not break down how many settled and how many were decided by the ombudsman).
National Whistleblower Law: Legge 30 November 2017, n 179; Article 54-bis of Decree No 165 of 30 March 2001; National Anti-Corruption Authority (Autorità Nazionale AntiCorruzione or ANAC) Resolution No 1033
Enacted: December 2017; --; October 2018
Scope of Law: This was the first whistleblowing regulation generally applicable to the private sector in Italy; Article 54-bis of Decree No 165 of 30 March 2001 regulates the forms of protection available to public sector workers who become whistleblowers; National Anti-Corruption Authority (Autorità Nazionale AntiCorruzione or ANAC) Resolution No 1033 of 30 October 2018 regulates the protection of anyone who reports a crime or impropriety he or she became aware of as part of an employment relationship.
Retaliation Cases: N/A; N/A; N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A; N/A; There was some anecdotal information in the 2018 ANAC report that revealed the number of files opened in 2018 after whistleblowers made disclosures to them. The report reveals that in 2018, more than 90 per cent of the cases of whistleblowing occurred in the public sector, but it does not indicate any form of resolution
National Whistleblower Law: WPA (Act No 122 of 2004)
Enacted: April 2006
Scope of Law: Covers private sector employees and public
sector employees in limited circumstances.
Retaliation Case Decisions: Our research found 30 whistleblower retaliation cases: 28 were from the private sector and two were public sector workers. Twenty-five of the whistleblowers failed to prevail on substantive grounds. Only one out of 30 was a clear merit win (3.3 per cent). It is worth noting, however, that the whistleblowers obtained full relief in four of the cases where the judge ruled that final retaliation findings were unnecessary because the challenged action was an illegal 'abuse of authority over personnel matters' (illegal dismissal in three cases and transfer in one).
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: The Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers (공익신고자보호법)
Enacted: September 2011
Scope of Law: Applies to the public and private sectors.
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Act on The Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC)
Enacted: January 2002
Scope of Law: Applies to public sector.
Retaliation Cases: Our research did not find any publicly reported decisions in whistleblower retaliation cases. However, the ACRC has published reports showing statistics about disclosures and requests for protection, including from retaliatory adverse personnel actions. We are unable to verify the accuracy of data presented in the reports because we do not have access to the original case data used and some of the findings omit important information, such as the outcomes of public interest disclosures.
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Law on Whistleblowers Protection, 2015; The Law on Amendment and Supplementation of the Law on Protection of Whistleblowers
Enacted: March 2016; February 2018
Scope of Law: N/A; N/A
Retaliation Cases: N/A; Our research did not find any reported retaliation decisions or statistics on whistleblower disclosures.
Number of Disclosures: N/A, however we would be remiss not to mention Gjorgi Lazarevski and Zvonko Kostovski, whose whistleblowing took place several months before the Law on Whistleblowers Protection went into effect and were not covered by the law due to the timing of their disclosure. After exposing mass illegal wiretapping of political opponents by the government of then Prime Minister Gruevski, they lost their jobs at the Office for Security and Counterintelligence and were imprisoned for 11 months – most of it in solitary confinement. Thanks to an effective public campaign by Transparency International North Macedonia and the Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection, despite the lack of formal legal rights Lazarevski and Kostovski were reinstated in December 2018.
National Whistleblower Law: WPA 2010 (Act 711)
Enacted: June 2010
Scope of Law: Provides whistleblowers with the infrastructure to bring a retaliation claim, and a one-in-three success rate shows the law is going some way towards protecting those who make disclosures against their employers.
Retaliation Cases: Our research for formal decisions in the public record found six retaliation cases. Of those cases, two whistleblowers won, one lost on the merits and three lost on procedural grounds. Of the two successful cases, only one sought financial relief. Only one case sought interim relief, and the court granted it. These statistics reiterate that effective protection requires cultural as well as legal changes.
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Protection of the Whistleblower Act, 2013
Enacted: September 2013
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: Our research did not find any formally reported case decisions in the public record.
National Whistleblower Law: Decision on Approving the Framework Regulation on Whistleblowers No 707; Integrity Law No 82
Enacted: September 2013; July 2017
Scope of Law: N/A; N/A
Retaliation Cases: Our research found three retaliation cases. Of the three cases, two won and one lost on the merits. The whistleblower who lost also sought interim relief, and the court did not grant it. The whistleblowers made disclosures to public audiences in two cases, and in one case, to both external and public audiences. The compensatory damages that the two prevailing whistleblowers received was $3,040 and $505. The length of time to decision ranged from 180 days to 1,686 days. The small number of retaliation cases is partly explained by the negative way whistleblowing is perceived in Moldova. The term ‘whistleblowing’ is not well known and is often confused with ‘witness’, which can deter people who fear involvement in court proceedings from coming forward; N/A
Number of Disclosures: Moldova hosted one of Europe’s best-known whistleblower cases, although it predated the national laws. In 2003, Iacob Guja was fired from his position as head of the press office in the Prosecutor General’s Office for revealing evidence of political interference in a criminal case. In 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Moldova had violated Guja’s right to freedom of expression granted under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It held that, as a whistleblower acting in the public interest, Guja had a right to inform the public about the officials’ misconduct. This landmark case established the principles used to determine whether and how freedom of expression should be protected under the European Convention; N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Employment Relations Act 2000
Enacted: 2000
Scope of Law: Anti-retaliation protection
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Protected Disclosures Act 2000
Enacted: 2000
Scope of Law: Anti-retaliation protection
Retaliation Cases: Our research found 11 retaliation cases Of the 11 cases, eight lost on the merits, two won on the merits, one won as a whistleblower defendant claiming immunity and one settled. In four instances, the whistleblowers were ordered to pay the opposing party’s costs in addition to their own.
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Working Environment Act
Enacted: January 2006
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: Our research found one case decision in 2009. The identity of the parties was undisclosed. The whistleblower won. The whistleblower was a worker for Non Destructive Testing (NDT) in Oslo who witnessed serious problems with welding and exposure to radioactive materials. The whistleblower made disclosures internally to the chief executive officer (CEO), but the CEO concealed and ignored the disclosure, and the whistleblower’s supervisor retaliated with acts such as spitting, throwing a security tape and threatening termination of employment. The whistleblower was ultimately terminated. The whistleblower won the case in the lower court, but did not receive any financial compensation. After appeal, the court awarded approximately $10,860.
National Whistleblower Law: Law No 29542
Enacted: June 2010
Scope of Law: Peru’s law provides protection to those whose complaints concern acts committed by public officials within the framework of a public entity.
Retaliation Case Decisions: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Regulation Supreme Decree No 010-2017-JUS
Enacted: January 2017
Scope of Law: Protects disclosures concerning criminal corruption offences with Legislative Decree No 1327.
Retaliation Case Decisions: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Legislative Decree No 1327
Enacted: January 2017
Scope of Law: Protects disclosures concerning criminal corruption offences with Regulation Supreme Decree No 010-2017-JUS.
Retaliation Case Decisions: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: PHARE Project RO 2006
Enacted: 2006
Scope of Law: Romania was the first country in continental Europe to pass a designated whistleblower law.
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: Our research found six cases, and in all six, the whistleblower prevailed. Whistleblowers made disclosures to public audiences in four cases, internal audiences in one case, and both internal and external audiences in one case. It is worth noting that because the names of plaintiffs and defendants, as well as file numbers, are censored, we were not able to verify that the decisions were final rulings. No information on the date claimants filed their cases was available, so we were unable to determine how long it took for whistleblowers to receive decisions from the courts and tribunals.
National Whistleblower Law: WPA
Enacted: June 2015
Scope of Law: The law provides legal protection against any retaliation except criminal prosecution. Its broad coverage includes government and corporate employees, as well as corporations, other media and civil society organisations, even extending to members of the public affected by the misconduct. They are protected for reporting a wide range of wrongdoing, including violations of laws or human rights, and risks to public health, security or the environment. Following international standards, whistleblowers are permitted to disclose information directly to the public if they reasonably believe evidence may be destroyed. In all cases, if not satisfied, they may go public without delay after an initial report either to an internal or external government authority. Acts seeking to prevent whistleblowing are banned under the law. Every significant public or private institution must have an internal system with a whistleblower office. Fines are imposed on organisations that do not set up whistleblower procedures or fail to act on a disclosure within a set time period.
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: We were unable to find any relevant published court decisions. However, Pištaljka, the leading whistleblower protection organisation in Serbia whose lawyers represent whistleblowers in retaliation cases, claims that out of 16 cases with final decisions, four lost (one lost on procedural grounds and three on the merits) and 12 won. Eleven cases sought interim relief, and it was granted in ten cases. Of the 12 cases that won, all received financial relief. Where financial relief was awarded, it was either back pay, back pay plus damages or just damages. Damages awarded were in the range of $1,000–$2,000. Eleven whistleblowers made disclosures to internal audiences, three to internal and external audiences, and two to external audiences. These final decisions understate the law’s use and impact, which were magnified by the law’s emphasis on temporary relief.
National Whistleblower Law: Slovak Act No 307/2014 Coll on Certain Measures Related to Reporting of Antisocial Activities; Act No 54/2019 Coll on Whistleblower Protection and on Amendments and Supplements to Certain Acts.
Enacted: January 2015, March 2019
Scope of Law: The law regulates conditions for the protection of whistleblowers reporting criminal offences or other so-called anti-social activities; This law replaced the previous law. The new law established an independent Office for the Protection of Persons Reporting on Anti-Social Activities (whistleblowers).
Retaliation Cases: N/A; Our research did not find any reported whistleblower retaliation case decisions, or public reports with information on the number of disclosures.
Number of Disclosures: N/A; N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Protected Disclosures Act 26, 2000
Enacted: February 2001
Scope of Law: Covers both public and private sectors
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: Of the thirty-three case decisions arising from the Protected Disclosures Act, seven whistleblower cases won and twenty-five cases lost (Twenty-one on the merits and four on procedural grounds). Disclosures were made to a variety of audiences, primarily internal. Of the disclosures, thirteen cases made internal disclosures, nine made external disclosures.
National Whistleblower Law: Employment Protection of Retaliation for Reporting Serious Misconduct
Enacted: January 2017
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: Our research found one 2019 private sector whistleblower retaliation case under the law, which was resolved through settlement. The whistleblower received compensation, but his employer did not reinstate him.
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2010
Enacted: May 2010
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: Two cases are relevant to this study. One case in 2015 concerned a lawsuit against a private sector whistleblower and an Inspector General for conspiracy, bad publicity, embarassment, inconvenience, and abuse of process. The defendants were successful in using the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2010 as a defense.
National Whistleblower Law: Public Interest Disclosures Act of 1998
Enacted: July 1999
Scope of Law: Its provisions apply to England, Wales, and Scotland.
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: The UK has hundreds of cases each year brought under the whistleblower law.
National Whistleblower Law: Occupational Safety and Health Act
Enacted: 1970
National Whistleblower Law: Civil Service Reform Act
Enacted: 1978
Scope of Law: Protects whistleblowing in all federal agencies.
National Whistleblower Law: Whistleblower Protection Act (Public Law No: 101-12)
Enacted: April 1989
Retaliation Case Decisions: In terms of retaliation complaints, the volume of final decisions from judges or administrative judges in public sector retaliation cases was 3.5 times higher than the private sector.
Number of Disclosures: Overall, over a one-year period, less than ten per cent of workers across the public and private sector prevailed when they attempted to defend their rights through whistleblowing proceedings. In the federal government alone, just 10.8 per cent (seven out of 65) whistleblowers prevailed on the merits with rulings that agencies violated their WPA rights. In the private sector, 31.2 per cent of whistleblowers who filed due process complaints won decisions on the merits (five out of 16).
National Whistleblower Law: Law on Denunciation
Enacted: November 2011
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: N/A
National Whistleblower Law: Law on Anti-Corruption
Enacted: N/A
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: N/A
Number of Disclosures: According to Transparency International Vietnam (TIV), the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Government Inspectorate reported that from 2011 to 2015 the authorities received 699 requests for protection from whistleblowers, including 99 from those who reported corruption. Only one-third of the requests were processed. TIV’s summary of the report findings does not specify the specific outcomes of protection requests that were processed. In December 2016, the Vietnam Government Inspectorate reported that it received and handled 69,267 disclosure forms related to about 45,197 cases. There were 86,463 disclosures about corruption solved by authorities in all government and local levels within ten years of the implementation of the Law on Anti-Corruption, but the findings from the disclosures and results were not clear from the report.
National Whistleblower Law: Public Interest Disclosure Act 4 of 2010
Enacted: July 2010
Scope of Law: N/A
Retaliation Cases: However, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court decided in favour of a whistleblower in 2018 when it ruled that the lower court should not have dismissed the case. In that case, the court instructed the whistleblower to file a complaint with the Industrial Relation Court within 30 days, which is why this case is not a final decision on the merits of the retaliation claim. The Industrial Court of Zambia has only published a limited selection of decisions, and there is no record of a subsequent ruling in the case.
Number of Disclosures: We did not find any publicly reported final decisions under this law.