Not without much debate, the MEPs expressed their support for whistleblowers to be able to go directly outside the organisation, for instance to the media, to report illegal or objectionable practices, in a report adopted (17 votes to 15 abstentions) at an extraordinary session of the 'legal affairs' (JURI) committee in Strasbourg on Monday 2 October.
The matter split the 'legal affairs' committee right to the last minute, with strong objections on the part of the Christian Democrats and Conservatives (see EUROPE 11870), but ultimately the compromise amendment giving whistleblowers the option to go directly to the media was adopted, albeit by a close majority (13 votes to 8 with one abstention).
The rapporteur on the text, Virginie Rozière (S&D, France), welcomed the adoption of her report in committee, but regretted the stance taken by the EPP. “It is entirely regrettable that the EPP does not support the possibility for whistleblowers to be able to contact the press”, she said, going on to stress the importance of being able to reach the general public directly, as shown by the 'LuxLeaks' case. The rapporteur told EUROPE that the adoption of this compromise explained the abstention of the EPP in the final vote. “The battle will continue until the plenary”, she concluded. Readers may recall that the EPP was in favour of a hierarchical reporting system, with the first report to be made internally, then externally, and to the media as a last resort (see EUROPE 11858).
Essentially, the compromise states that every organisation must provide a channel allowing whistleblowers to report illegal or objectionable practices internally, stressing the importance of making employees aware of the systems in place. In particular, the compromise states that the whistleblower must be able to approach the public authorities, non-government organisations or, if necessary, the media: - if the organisation does not respond appropriately; - if internal reporting or notifying the competent authorities would compromise the effectiveness of the action; - if the whistleblower is threatened; - if it is necessary to reveal information urgently.
Other points are a source of satisfaction to the rapporteur. First of all, the MEPs approved the principle that the EU must adopt cross-cutting legislation to protect whistleblowers – a principle opposed by the EPP initially, we are told. In the compromise amendment, the MEPs stressed the importance of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the principle of implicit competence (see EUROPE 11628) to craft this legislation.
In another victory for the rapporteur, the definition of the notion of whistleblower must be broad enough to include as many cases as possible. This means that any person reporting or revealing information in the public interest, including the European public interest, is deemed a whistleblower. Here, the MEPs decided to extend the scope of application beyond traditional employer-employee contractual relations to include consultants, the self-employed, placement students, volunteers, student workers and ex-employees. Furthermore, as we previously reported, the whistleblower must act only if he or she is convinced of having valid reasons to believe that the information being reported is true – wording that was used instead of "in good faith" (see EUROPE 11858).
The MEPs also suggest setting up national funds or a European fund to protect whistleblowers from criminal proceedings, economic sanctions and discriminations. These funds, the MEPs explain, could be partly fed into from the proceeds of fines handed down, without going into greater detail. The EFDD's proposal to pay whistleblowers was not adopted.
The text must now be put to the vote at the second October plenary session to be held from 23 to 26 October.
For its part, the European Commission has decided to put back by one year the presentation of an initiative, due to the complexity of the dossier (see EUROPE 11873). The MEPs may well be disappointed at this decision, having called for an initiative by the end of the year. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)