The legal possibility of directly warning public opinion about an organisation’s practices that run counter to the general interest was again discussed by the various political groups at the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee (JURI) during a meeting on Wednesday 6 September on an own-initiative report on protection for whistleblowers.
Virginie Rozière (S&D, France), rapporteur for the text, is reported to favour giving whistleblowers the option of publicly revealing practices (see EUROPE 11828) without necessarily having to first raise the question internally, before discussing it externally and finally publicly. This view is shared by the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL. The EPP is less enthusiastic, preferring a stageist approach with a clearly identified and compulsory hierarchy.
Another question left hanging is the definition of the term ‘whistleblower.’ There has also been discussion about definition of the ‘general interest.’ Another question, raised by the ALDE group, is about the need to integrate the concept of ‘good faith’ in the definition of whistleblowers. We are told the proposal may cause problems because this term has a restricted meaning in some member states. Also, it is would be difficult to prove something was done in good faith.
There are also reported to be issues around secrets related to national security. Here, the EPP would like to include special rules, but the idea is not reported to be shared by other political groupings.
Apart from on the above-mentioned issues, the MEPs are said to have made huge progress. Roziere’s draft report seemed to garner consensus on the day it was unveiled at JURI. Moreover, the view of the economic and monetary affairs committee (see EUROPE 11855) is said to have been welcomed by JURI for good reason – it includes a number of important points made by the JURI rapporteur, such as the burden of proof for organisations and the guarantee of anonymity for whistleblowers.
The upcoming meeting between the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs will take place on 25 September. The committee vote will take place three days later. The text will be sent to Parliament's second October plenary. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)