TFL Vsebine / Revija Poslovodno računovodstvo

V prispevku sta obravnavani tematiki dobrovernosti prijaviteljev in njihove zaščite pred povračilnimi ukrepi. Zahtevo po dobrovernosti prijaviteljev je potrebno razumeti v smislu, da je prijavitelj v času prijave utemeljeno domneval, da so informacije, ki jih je prijavil, resnične. Gre za ključni zaščitni ukrep pred zlonamernimi, neresnimi ali nepoštenimi prijavami, ki zagotavlja, da osebe, ki zavestno prijavijo napačne ali zavajajoče informacije, niso upravičene do zaščite. Temu sledi tudi predlog direktive o zaščiti oseb, ki prijavijo kršitve prava Unije. Povračilni ukrepi se v praksi pojavljajo v mnogih oblikah in predstavljajo visoko tveganje za vsakega prijavitelja. To je prepoznala tudi evropska komisija, ki v predlogu direktive opredeljuje vrsto ukrepov za zaščito dobrovernih prijaviteljev. Mnogi med njimi so pogojeni z ustreznim zaporedjem uporabe notranjih in zunanjih kanalov ter javnega razkritja, ki ga mora dokazati prijavitelj. Takšno dokazno breme ni primerno in zmanjšuje učinkovitost predlaganih zaščitnih ukrepov. V predlogu direktive je premalo izpostavljena dolžnost varovanja identitete prijaviteljev, ki se omenja le posredno pri načinu delovanja zunanjih linij. Zaupanje prijaviteljev v linije za prijave in postopek njihove obravnave je ključnega pomena, zato bi bila neposredna opredelitev dolžnosti varovanja identitete prijavitelja, ne glede na način njenega razkritja in ne glede na uporabljeni kanal prijave, vsekakor na mestu.

The paper discusses the whistleblowers’ good faith and their protection against retaliation. The whistleblowers’ good faith requirement should be understood in the sense that a whistleblower had reasonable grounds to believe that the information reported was true at the time of reporting. This is a key safeguard against malicious, untrustworthy and dishonest reporting that ensures that persons who knowingly report false or misleading information are not eligible for protection. This understanding of the requirement is followed also by the directive proposal on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law. In practice, reprisals occur in many forms and pose a high risk for every whistleblower. This was also recognized by the European Commission, which sets out in its directive proposal a series of measures to protect bona fide whistleblowers. However, many of them are conditioned by the proper order of use of internal, external channels and public disclosure, which is on the whistleblower to prove. Such a burden of proof is not appropriate and reduces the effectiveness of the proposed protective measures. The proposal for a directive lacks the duty to protect the identity of applicants, which is only indirectly mentioned in the way external lines should be operated. The trust of the whistleblowers in the reporting lines and the procedure for their processing is of key importance, and therefore a direct definition of the duty to protect the identity of a whistleblower, regardless of the manner of its disclosure, and regardless of the reporting line used, would certainly be in place.