Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Whistleblowing Around the World

A Comparative Analysis of Whistleblowing in 23 Countries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GRIA,volume 24))

  • 875 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter gives a general overview of whistleblowing around the world. Its purpose is to disclose commonalities and differences between several jurisdictions and to give a general idea of what constitutes whistleblowing.

Gregor Thüsing, Gerrit Forst, Whistleblowing Around the World: A Comparative Analysis of Whistleblowing in 23 Countries in: Gregor Thüsing, Gerrit Forst (eds.), Whistleblowing—A Comparative Study, Volume 16 of the Series Ius Comparatum—Global Studies in Comparative Law, pp. 3–30 (2016), © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016. With permission of Springer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. John Bowers, Martin Fodder, Jeremy Lewis, Jack Mitchell, Whistleblowing: Law and practice, 2nd ed. 2012, Oxford: OUP; A. J. Brown, David Lewis, Richard Moberly, 2014, International Handbook on Whistleblowing Research, Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar; Richard Calland, Guy Dehn, 2004, Whistleblowing Around The World: Law, Culture and Practice, Pretoria: IDASA Publishers; Adrian von Kaehnel, 2012, Whistleblowing – Multidisziplinäre Aspekte, Bern: Stämpfli; Klaus Leisinger, 2003, Whistleblowing und Corporate Reputation Management, Mering: Hampp Verlag; David Lewis, 2010, A Global Approach to Public Interest Disclosure: What Can We Learn From Existing Whistleblowing Legislation and Research?, Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar; Xavier Patier, 2012, La prévention de la corruption en France, Paris: DL; Wim Vandekerckhove, 2006, Whistleblowing and Organizational Social Responsibility: A Global Assessment, Burlington: Ashgate.

  2. 2.

    Ernst Zitelmann, 1900, Aufgabe und Bedeutung der Rechtsvergleichung, Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 5: 329 (330) right column.

  3. 3.

    The experts we consulted are: Daphne Aichberger-Beig (Austria), Daniel Cuypers (Belgium), Priscila Fichtner (Brazil), John P. McEvoy (Canada), Sandra Laleta (Croatia), Constantinos Kombos (Cyprus), Jan Pichrt with Jakub Morávek (Czech Republic), Merle Muda (Estonia), Jari Murto (Finland), Katrin Deckert (France), Rüdiger Krause (Germany), Maria Teresa Carinci (Italy I) and Edoardo Ales with Antonio Riccio (Italy II), Hiroyuki Minagawa (Japan), David Fabri (Malta), Björn Rohde-Liebenau (Netherlands), Dagmara Skupień (Poland), Júlio Gomes (Portugal), Raluca Dimitriu (Romania), Chandra Mohan (Singapore), Darja Senčur Peček (Slovenia), Sung-Wook Lee (South Korea), Owen Wamock (UK), Shawn Marie Boyne (USA).

  4. 4.

    To simplify matters, we will refer to “Country Report …, p. …” in this general report only.

  5. 5.

    To improve legibility, we opted to use the masculine term only, although whistleblowers can of course be female or of another sex (a third sex is recognized e.g. in Australia and India) as well.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Art. 33 of the Convention Against Corruption of the United Nations and Principle No. 10 of the UN Global Compact; Art. 9 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption of the Council of Europe; G-20, Agenda for Action on Combating Corruption, Promoting Market Integrity, and Supporting a Clean Business Environment of 12.11.2010 (Annex III No. 7); ICC, Guidelines on Whistleblowing; OECD, Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions of 26.11.2009 as at 18.2.2010 (Annex II-A Abs. 11 lit. ii)); OSCE, Best Practices in Combating Corruption, 2004; Art. 5 lit. c) of ILO-Convention No. 158: Convention concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer of 22.6.1982.

  7. 7.

    Amongst others: Richard Calland, Guy Dehn, 2004, Whistleblowing Around The World: Law, Culture and Practice, Pretoria: IDASA Publishers; Jens Düsel, 2009, Gespaltene Loyalität: Whistleblowing und Kündigungsschutz in Deutschland, Großbritannien und Frankreich, Baden-Baden: Nomos; David Lewis, 2010, A Global Approach to Public Interest Disclosure: What Can We Learn From Existing Whistleblowing Legislation and Research?, Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar; Diana Imbach Haumüller, 2011, Whistleblowing in der Schweiz und im internationalen Vergleich - ein Bestandteil einer effektiven internen Kontrolle?, Zürich: Schulthess; Rapporteur Omtzigt, in: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Doc. 12006: The protection of „whistle-blowers“, 2009; Group of States Against Corruption in the Council of Europe (GRECO), Seventh General Activity Report (2006), 2007; Wim Vandekerckhove, 2006, Whistleblowing and Organizational Social Responsibility: A Global Assessment, Burlington: Ashgate.

  8. 8.

    A first-hand insight into the facts of that case is given in No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state, 2014 by the journalist Glenn Greenwald who supported Edward Snowden in making his revelations.

  9. 9.

    Cf. note 1.

  10. 10.

    Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act of 2005, amongst others.

  11. 11.

    Several statutes and decrees, cf. Country Report Netherlands, p. 1 f.

  12. 12.

    Public Interest Disclosure Act (since 1998, amended in 2013, which equals Art. 43A ff. Employment Rights Act 1996).

  13. 13.

    The first piece of legislation is the False Claims Act of 1863. Today, a large number of sector-specific legislation is in force, cf. Country Report USA, p. 3 ff.

  14. 14.

    Whistleblower Protection Act.

  15. 15.

    Act On The Prevention Of Corruption And The Establishment And Management Of The Anti-Corruption And Civil Rights Commission of 2008 and Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act of 2011.

  16. 16.

    Art. L. 1161-1 Code du travail (Labour Code) amongst others, cf. Country Report France, p. 2 ff.

  17. 17.

    Protection of the Whistleblower Act.

  18. 18.

    Cf. note 11.

  19. 19.

    Country Report Austria, p. 2.

  20. 20.

    Country Report Belgium, p. 3 f.

  21. 21.

    Cf. note 10.

  22. 22.

    Cf. note 16.

  23. 23.

    See above and Country Report Germany, p. 1.

  24. 24.

    Country Report Italy I, p. 2 f. and Country Report Italy II, p. 1 f.

  25. 25.

    Cf. note 17.

  26. 26.

    Country Report Romania, p. 3.

  27. 27.

    Country Report Singapore, p. 1 f.

  28. 28.

    Country Report Slovenia, p. 2.

  29. 29.

    Cf. note 13.

  30. 30.

    Country Report Belgium, p. 3.

  31. 31.

    Country Report Canada, p. 9.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Gerrit Forst, 2014, Whistleblowing im Gesundheitswesen, Die Sozialgerichtsbarkeit 60: 413-422.

  33. 33.

    Country Report USA, p. 3 ff.

  34. 34.

    Country Report Poland, p. 4.

  35. 35.

    For Germany, cf. Gerrit Forst, 2013, Whistleblowing und Datenschutz, Recht der Datenverarbeitung 36: 122-132.

  36. 36.

    Directive 95/46/EC.

  37. 37.

    Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC, 2006/54/EC and 2010/41/EU.

  38. 38.

    Art. 9 Directive 2000/43/EC, Art. 11 Directive 2000/78/EC, Art. 24 Directive 2006/54/EC.

  39. 39.

    CNIL, Autorisation unique No. AU-004 - Délibération No. 2005-305 of 8.12.2005, amended by Délibération No. 2010-369 of 14.10.2010; Délibération No. 2011-345 of 10.11.2011 (concerning EDF), Délibération No. 2011-346 of 10.11.2011 (concerning Thales) and Délibération No. 2011-406 of 15.12.2011 (concerning Aggreko).

  40. 40.

    Cour de cassation (France), No. 08-17191, Judgement (Chambre sociale) of 8 December 2009.

  41. 41.

    Art. 29 Working Group (the name refers to Art. 29 Directive 95/46/EC, the legal basis of the group), Opinion 1/2006 on the application of EU data protection rules to internal whistleblowing schemes in the fields of accounting, internal accounting controls, auditing matters, fight against bribery, banking and financial crime (Working Paper 117), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/index_en.htm (as at 12.1.2015).

  42. 42.

    Cf. England and Wales Court of Appeal, No. A2/2010/2919/EATRF, Case NHS Manchester v. Fecitt & Ors, Judgement (Civil Division) of 25 October 2011; No. A2/2006/0402, Case Bolton School v. Evans, Judgement (Civil Division) of 15 November 2006; No. A1/2003/2160, Case Street v. Derbyshire, Judgement (Civil Division) of 21 July 2004; No. A1/2001/1241&B, Case ALM Medical Services Ltd. v. Bladon, Judgement (Civil Division) of 26 July 2002; United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, No. UKEAT/0141/09, Case BP v. Elstone, Judgement of 31 March 2010; No. UKEAT/0275/08/DA, Case Hibbins v. Hester Way Neighbourhood Project, Judgement of 16 October 2008.

  43. 43.

    Cf. Supreme Court (USA), No. 07-214, Case Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, Judgement of 9 June 2008; No. 04-169, Case Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson, Judgement of 20 June 2005.

  44. 44.

    Country Report Austria, p. 2.

  45. 45.

    Supreme Court (Canada), No. 30090, Case Merk v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, Judgement of 24 November 2005.

  46. 46.

    Supreme Court (Canada), No. 17451, Case Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, Judgement of 10 December 1985.

  47. 47.

    CNIL, Autorisation unique No. AU-004 - Délibération No. 2005-305 of 8.12.2005, amended after the decision of the Cour de cassation by Délibération No. 2010-369 of 14.10.2010 and again by Délibération No. 2014-042 of 30.1.2014.

  48. 48.

    Cour de cassation (France), No. 08-17191, Judgement (Chambre sociale) of 8 December 2009.

  49. 49.

    ECtHR, No. 28369/07, Case Balenović v. Croatia, Judgement (Chamber) of 30 September 2010.

  50. 50.

    ECtHR, No. 28274/08, Case Heinisch v. Germany, Judgement (Chamber) of 21 July 2011.

  51. 51.

    The dismissal with notice period from January 2005 had not taken effect at this point, as the notice period had not expired yet. It is not uncommon for employers in Germany to dismiss employees several times for different reasons just in case that a dismissal should be rendered void by a court. The employee has to challenge each dismissal individually to make sure that none of them takes effect. In this case, however, the employer wanted to dismiss the applicant summarily with the second dismissal.

  52. 52.

    S. 43K Employment Rights Act 1996.

  53. 53.

    Country Report Malta, p. 2.

  54. 54.

    Country Report Belgium, p. 8.

  55. 55.

    Country Report South Korea, p. 3.

  56. 56.

    Country Report Canada, p. 25.

  57. 57.

    GRECO, Seventh General Activity Report (2006), 2007, p. 12; Rapporteur Omtzigt, in: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Doc. 12006: The protection of “whistle-blowers”, 2009, para. 116 lit. f).

  58. 58.

    Cf. note 41, p. 11.

  59. 59.

    Cf. note 47, Art. 2.

  60. 60.

    Bundesarbeitsgericht, No. 2 AZR 235/02, Judgement (Second Senate) of 3 July 2003, para. 34.

  61. 61.

    Country Report Japan, p. 4.

  62. 62.

    Country Report Malta, p. 3.

  63. 63.

    Country Report UK, p. 3.

  64. 64.

    Country Report Japan, p. 3.

  65. 65.

    ECtHR, No. 28274/08, Case Heinisch v. Germany, Judgement (Chamber) of 21 July 2011, para. 73.

  66. 66.

    ECtHR, No. 28274/08, Case Heinisch v. Germany, Judgement (Chamber) of 21 July 2011, paras. 73 and 86.

  67. 67.

    Country Report UK, p. 4.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), case 1 BvR 2049/00, Judgement of 2 July 2001.

  69. 69.

    Country Report Italy II, p. 6 f.

  70. 70.

    Country Report Japan, p. 3; Country Report UK, p. 4.

  71. 71.

    ECtHR, No. 28274/08, Case Heinisch v. Germany, Judgement (Chamber) of 21 July 2011, para. 67.

  72. 72.

    Bundesarbeitsgericht, No. 2 AZR 235/02, Judgement (Second Senate) of 3 July 2003, para. 29.

  73. 73.

    ECtHR, No. 28274/08, Case Heinisch v. Germany, Judgement (Chamber) of 21 July 2011, para. 69.

  74. 74.

    Cf. note 47, Art. 1.

  75. 75.

    S. 43B (1) Employment Rights Act 1996.

  76. 76.

    Country Report Canada, p. 34.

  77. 77.

    Country Report Singapore, p. 3.

  78. 78.

    François Barrière, 2011, La Semaine Juridique Entreprise & Affaires 42: 1527 (1530).

  79. 79.

    Country Report Italy II, p. 2 f.

  80. 80.

    Country Report Poland, p. 5.

  81. 81.

    Art. 13 (2) (d) Directive 89/391/EEC. In Canada, certain employees are also obliged to report breaches of health and safety at work standards.

  82. 82.

    Artt. 20 ff. Directive 2005/60/EC.

  83. 83.

    Art. 5 (2) Directive 2004/35/EC.

  84. 84.

    Country Report Cyprus, p. 5.

  85. 85.

    Country Report Singapore, p. 4.

  86. 86.

    Country Report Austria, p. 4.

  87. 87.

    Country Report Germany, p. 3.

  88. 88.

    Country Report Malta, p. 4.

  89. 89.

    Country Report UK, p. 5.

  90. 90.

    Country Report Japan, p. 4.

  91. 91.

    Country Report Belgium, p. 11 f.

  92. 92.

    Cf. Holger Fleischer, Klaus Ulrich Schmolke, 2012, Financial Incentives for Whistleblowers in European Capital Markets Law? Legal Policy Considerations on the Reform of the Market Abuse Regime, European Capital Markets Law 9: 250-259.

  93. 93.

    Cf. U.S. Department of Justice, The False Claims Act: A Primer, available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2011/04/22/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf (as at 30 March 2017).

  94. 94.

    On this case, see Laura Saunders, Robin Sidel, Whistleblower Gets §104 Million, Wall Street Journal of 11.9.2012, available at http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444017504577645412614237708?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10000872396390444017504577645412614237708.html (as at 30 March 2017).

  95. 95.

    COM(2011)651.

  96. 96.

    Art. 32 (4) Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014.

  97. 97.

    Even the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) of the UK – perceived by some as being the most likely institution to head that way – decided against this instrument, cf. FCA, Financial Incentives for Whistleblowers, available at http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/financial-incentives-for-whistleblowers (as at 30 March 2017).

  98. 98.

    Available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/leniency/leniency.html (as at 30 March 2017).

  99. 99.

    Country Report Austria, p. 5.

  100. 100.

    Country Report South Korea, p. 6.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Labour Law and Social Security Law, University Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Gregor Thüsing

  2. HengelerMueller, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Gerrit Forst

Authors
  1. Gregor Thüsing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerrit Forst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Gregor Thüsing or Gerrit Forst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Martin Schauer

  2. Department of European, International and Comparative Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Bea Verschraegen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thüsing, G., Forst, G. (2017). Whistleblowing Around the World. In: Schauer, M., Verschraegen, B. (eds) General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1064-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1066-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation