By the end of spring next year, the European Commission will have presented the results of an impact assessment into possible European legislation to protect whistleblowers, according to Georgia Georgiadou, deputy head of unit on fundamental rights policy at the European Commission, speaking at a conference on European actions in favour of whistleblowers that was held in Brussels on Thursday 20 October by the S&D Group.
She went on to take the precaution of stressing that this was an estimate purely based on procedures, also citing summer 2017 as a possible timeframe, and announcing the forthcoming launch of a public consultation. The institution will attempt to determine the impact of a cross-cutting directive of this kind, particularly by means of monitoring certain national legislative frameworks.
A number of member states have already moved forward on this dossier, in particular the United Kingdom (since 1998) and Ireland (2014), as Nicole Marie Meyer, adviser and coordinator of the whistleblowers programme of Transparency International France, stressed. France is expected also to adopt a framework in the near future that will come down on the side of increased protection (Sapin II law). However, Europe's most protective state is Serbia, she said.
A vast amount of work. The amount of work that this directive would entail is massive, stressed Pervenche Berès (S&D, France). She said that a number of concepts would have to be clarified at European level, starting with the definition of whistleblower and public interest. The question of protection for whistleblowers has been late to emerge within the EU due to a regular confusion between the concepts of "informant" (who collects information, such as customs information, or intelligence services, or the "indicator") and the "whistleblower" (who obtains information by pure chance in the framework of his or her professional or citizenship activities).
The question of compensation to cover the costs related to legal proceedings and professional career guidance should also be dealt with, according to those who took the floor. A number of these referred to the possibility for the whistleblower to receive a certain percentage of all compensation paid. Others mooted the idea of remuneration – an option which did not seem to find favour with Virginie Rozière (S&D, France), who is likely to be the future rapporteur on the own-initiative text (see EUROPE 11644).
The reversal of the burden of proof was also discussed. The trade secrets directive, which was adopted in April this year (see EUROPE 11532), came under fire as it requires the whistleblower to prove that he or she acted in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 on derogations to the scope of application of this directive.
Finally and unsurprisingly, the question of the legal base was also on all lips (see EUROPE 11628). Responding to questions from EUROPE, Georgiadou confirmed that the European Commission was currently looking into the question of implicit competences among the possible options. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)