Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Whistleblower Protection Under the European Convention on Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Whistleblower Protection by the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union

Part of the book series: European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World ((EUNGW,volume 3))

  • 484 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the European Court of Human Rights’ case-law on whistleblower protection. It provides an extensive analysis of the six criteria developed by the Court when balancing whistleblowers’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR and their duty of loyalty towards their employers. The final part addresses the additional limits established over the last decade in regard to the status of whistleblower under the European Convention on Human Rights.

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 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
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.

    Lambert Abdelgawad (2017), p. 505.

  2. 2.

    Ibid., p. 465.

  3. 3.

    Ibid., p. 473.

  4. 4.

    Giegerich (2013).

  5. 5.

    Ibid., p. 229.

  6. 6.

    Protocol No 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby of 11 May 1994, ETS No 155.

  7. 7.

    Lambert Abdelgawad (2017), p. 470.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., p. 231.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., p. 249.

  10. 10.

    ECtHR, Abbaso v. Azerbaijan, Appl. no. 24271/05, 17 January 2008, para 36.

  11. 11.

    Lambert Abdelgawad (2017), p. 249.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., p. 250.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., p. 472.

  14. 14.

    ECtHR, Airey v. Ireland, Appl. no. 6289/73, 9 October 1979, para 24, “The Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective”.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR, Tyrer v. UK, Appl. no. 5856/72, 25 April 1978, para 31; ECtHR, Johnston and Others v. Ireland, Appl. no. 9697/82, 18 December 1986, para 53; ECtHR, Inze v. Austria, Appl. no. 8695/79, 28 October 1987, para 41; ECtHR, Airey v. Ireland, para 26.

  16. 16.

    ECtHR, Rasmussen v. Denmark, Appl. no. 8777/79, 28 November 1984, para 40 ; ECtHR, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1), Appl. no. 6538/74, 26 April 1979, para 59.

  17. 17.

    ECtHR, Lingens v. Austria, Appl. no. 9815/82, 8 July 1986, para 42; ECtHR, Castells v. Spain, Appl. no. 11798/85, 23 April 1992, para 43; ECtHR, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, Appl. no. 13778/88, 25 June 1992, para 63.

  18. 18.

    ECtHR, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 5493/72, 7 December 1976, para 49.

  19. 19.

    ECtHR, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, Appl. no. 12945/87, 16 December 1992, para 47; ECtHR, Pasko v. Russia, Appl. no. 69519/01, 22 October 2009, para 87.

  20. 20.

    Lambert Abdelgawad (2017), pp. 250–252.

  21. 21.

    ECtHR, Handyside, para 49.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, Lingens, para 46; see also ECtHR, Jerusalem v. Austria, Appl. no. 26958/95, 27 February 2001, para 42; ECtHR, Dichand and Others v. Austria, Appl. 29271/95, 26 February 2002, para 42.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR, Handyside, para 49.

  24. 24.

    e.g. ECtHR, Goodwin v. United Kingdom [GC], Appl. no. 17488/90, 27 March 1996, para 39.

  25. 25.

    ECtHR, Guja v. Moldova [GC], Appl. no. 14277/04, 12 February 2008, para 52 ; ECtHR, Kudeshkina v. Russia, Appl. no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009, para 85 ; ECtHR, Herbai v. Hungary, Appl. no. 11608/15, 5 November 2019, para 36 ; ECtHR, Soares v. Portugal, Appl. no. 79972/12, 21 June 2016, para 39 ; ECtHR, Balenović v. Croatia (Admissibility), Appl. no. 28369/07, 30 September 2010 ; ECtHR, Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland, Appl. no. 20436/02, 16 July 2009, para 42; ECtHR, Gawlik v. Liechtenstein, Appl. no. 23922/19, 16 February 2021, para 47.

  26. 26.

    ECtHR, Glasenapp v. Germany, Appl. no. 9228/80, 28 Augst 1986, para 50; ECtHR, Kosiek v. Germany, Appl. no. 9704/82, 28 Augst 1986, para 36; ECtHR, Haseldine v. United Kingdom (Admissibility), Appl. no. 18957/91, 13 May 1992, p. 230 ; ECtHR, Poyraz v. Turkey, Appl. no. 15966/06, 7 December 2010, para 56 ; ECtHR, Vogt v. Germany [GC], Appl. no. 17851/91, 26 Septembre 1995, para 53 ; ECtHR, Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], Appl. no. 28396/95, para 41 ; ECtHR, Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, Appl. no. 39293/98, 29 February 2000, para 38 ; ECtHR, Guja, para 52 ; ECtHR, Kayasu v. Turquie, Appl. nos, 64119/00 and 76292/01, 13 November 2008, para 77.

  27. 27.

    ECtHR, Ana Ioniţă v. Romania, Appl. no. 30655/09, 21 March 2017, para 40.

  28. 28.

    ECtHR, Thorgeir Thorgeirson, para 63; ECtHR, Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, Appl. no 13585/88, 26 November 1991, para 59.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR, Sunday Times (No. 1), para 49.

  30. 30.

    ECtHR, Barthold v. Germany, Appl. no. 8734/79, 25 March 1985, para 55 ; ECtHR, Handyside, para 48; ECtHR, Sunday Times (No. 1), para 59 ; see also ECtHR, Lingens, para 39.

  31. 31.

    ECtHR, Rasmussen, para 40.

  32. 32.

    e.g. ECtHR, Kudła v. Poland [GC], Appl. no. 30210/96, 26 October 2000, para 152 ; ECtHR, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], Appl. no. 64886/01, 29 March 2006, para 38 ; ECtHR, De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], Appl. no. 22689/07, 13 December 2012, para 77.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR, Barthold, para 55 ; see also ECtHR, Handyside, paras 48-49 ; ECtHR, Sunday Times (No. 1), para 59; ECtHR, Lingens, para 39.

  34. 34.

    ECtHR, Aurelian Oprea v. Romania, Appl. no. 12138/08, 19 January 2016, para 58.

  35. 35.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 70; ECtHR, Marchenko v. Ukraine, Appl. no. 4063/04, 19 February 2009, para 45; ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 85; ECtHR, Wojtas-Kaleta, para 43 ; ECtHR, Heinisch v. Germany, Appl. no. 28274/08, 21 July 2011, para 63 ; ECtHR, Trade Union of the Police in the Slovak Republic and Others v. Slovakia, Appl. no. 11828/08, 25 September 2012, para 57 ; ECtHR, Matúz v. Hungary, Appl. no. 73571/10, 21 October 2014, para 32; ECtHR, Rubins v. Latvia, Appl. no. 79040/12, 13 January 2015, para 78; ECtHR, Langner v. Germany, Appl. no. 14464/11, 17 September 2015, para 43; ECtHR, Kharlamov v. Russia, Appl. no. 27447/07, 8 October 2015, para 27 ; ECtHR, Aurelian Oprea, para 59; ECtHR, Soares, para 41; ECtHR, Marunić v. Croatia, Appl. no. 51706/11, 28 March 2017, para 52; ECtHR, Pay v. UK (Admissibility), Appl. no. 32792/05, 16 September 2008; ECtHR, Gawlik, para 65.

  36. 36.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 70; ECtHR, Marchenko, para 45; ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 85; ECtHR, Trade Union of the Police in the Slovak Republic and Others, para 57; ECtHR, Rubins, para 78; ECtHR, Langner, para 43; ECtHR, Kharlamov, para 27; ECtHR, Aurelian Oprea, para 59; ECtHR, Soares, para 41.

  37. 37.

    ECtHR, Haseldine (A), p. 231 ; ECtHR, Guja, para 71; ECtHR, Kosiek, para 85; ECtHR, Ahmed and Others v. United Kingdom, Appl. no. 22954/93, 2 September 1998, para 53.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 71 ; see also ECtHR, Ahmed and Others, para 53.

  39. 39.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 71.

  40. 40.

    Ibid.; see also ECtHR, Vogt, para 53 ; ECtHR, Hadjianastassiou, para 46 ; ECtHR, Ahmed and Others, para 56 ; ECtHR, Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], Appl. no. 25390/94, 20 May 1999, para 43 ; ECtHR, De Diego Nafría v. Spain, Appl. no. 46833/99, 14 March 2002, para 37 ; ECtHR, Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], Appl. nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, Appl. no. 12 September 2011, para 76 ; ECtHR, di Giovanni v. Italy, Appl. no. 51160/06, 9 Juillet 2013, para 69 ; ECtHR, Catalan v. Romania, Appl. no. 13003/04, 9 Janvier 2018, para 61 ; ECtHR, Poyraz, para 57.

  41. 41.

    ECtHR, Catalan, para 60; ECtHR, Poyraz, para 78; see also ECtHR, Haseldine (A), p. 232: “a civil servant in a sensitive post should be subject to at least some restrictions and conditions on his freedom of expression concerning information gained in his official capacity … or relating directly to his functions, particularly when these concern politically sensitive matters”.

  42. 42.

    ECtHR, Wojtas-Kaleta, para 43 ; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 64 ; ECtHR, Matúz, para 32; ECtHR, Marunić, para 52.

  43. 43.

    ECtHR, Zakharov v. Russia, Appl. no. 14881/03, 5 October 2006, para 26 ; ECtHR, Siryk v. Ukraine, Appl. no. 6428/07, 31 March 2011, para 42 ; ECtHR, Bezymyannyy v. Russia, Appl. no. 10941/03, 8 April 2010, para 40 ; ECtHR, Kazakov v. Russia, Appl. no. 1758/02, 18 December 2008, para 28.

  44. 44.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 72.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 64.

  47. 47.

    ECtHR, Gawlik, para 47; ECtHR, Lichtenstrasser v. Austria (Admissibility), Appl. no. 32413/08, 7 October 2014, para 27 ; ECtHR, Aguilera Jiménez and Others v. Spain, Appl. nos. 28389/06, 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06, 28961/06 and 28964/06, 8 December 2009, para 25; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 44 ; ECtHR, Dink v. Turkey, Appl. nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, 14 September 2010, para 106; ECtHR, Palomo Sánchez and Others, para 59 ; ECtHR, Matúz, para 26; ECtHR, Skwirut v. Poland (Admissibility), Appl. no. 11002, 4 November 2014, para 41; ECtHR, Kaboğlu and Oran v. Turkey, Appl. nos. 1759/08, 50766/10 and 50782/10, 30 October 2018, para 71; ECtHR, Herbai, para 37; ECtHR, Fuentes Bobo, para 38; ECtHR, Ozgür Gündem v. Turkey, Appl. no. 23144/93, 16 March 2000, para 43.

  48. 48.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 10.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para 11.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., para 12.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., paras 13–14.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., para 15–16.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para 18.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., para 18–20.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., para 21.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., para 22.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., paras 23–25.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., para 48.

  59. 59.

    ECtHR, Vogt, para 53; ECtHR, Wille, para 41; ECtHR, Ahmed and Others, para 56 ; ECtHR, Fuentes Bobo, para 38.

  60. 60.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 52.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., paras 55–56.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., paras 57–58.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., para 59.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., para 70.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., para 71.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., para 72.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., para 73.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., para 74.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

  70. 70.

    see ECtHR, Castells, para 46 in fine.

  71. 71.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 75.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., para 75.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., para 76.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., para 77.

  76. 76.

    Ibid.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., para 78.

  78. 78.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 73.

  79. 79.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 73; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 65.

  80. 80.

    ECtHR, Haseldine (A), pp. 231–232 ; ECtHR, Balenović (A), ‘wide circulation’.

  81. 81.

    ECtHR, Soares, para 48.

  82. 82.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 73.

  83. 83.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 82; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 73; ECtHR, Bucur and Toma v. Romania, Appl. no. 40238/02, 8 January 2013, para 97; ECtHR, Matúz, para 47.

  84. 84.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 73.

  85. 85.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 82; ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 97.

  86. 86.

    ECtHR, Soares, para 48.

  87. 87.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 73; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 65.

  88. 88.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 81.

  89. 89.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 81; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 75; ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 96; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others v. Turkey, Appl. no. 49085/07, 19 Janvier 2016, para 61.

  90. 90.

    Schlachter (2012), p. 112; Junod (2009), p. 260.

  91. 91.

    ECtHR, Gawlik, para 82.

  92. 92.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 74.

  93. 93.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 87 ; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 91 ; ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 101 ; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 54.

  94. 94.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 87.

  95. 95.

    ECtHR, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], Appl. no. 21980/93, 20 May 1999, para 63; ECtHR, Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], Appl. no. 69698/01, 10 December 2007, paras 117-120 ; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, paras 55-56 ; ECtHR, Matúz, para 39.

  96. 96.

    ECtHR, Matúz, para 33.

  97. 97.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 86.

  98. 98.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 86.

  99. 99.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 90 ; see also ECtHR, Heinisch, para 89 ; ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 86; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 63.

  100. 100.

    ECtHR, Hadjianastassiou, para 46 ; ECtHR, Ahmed and Others, para 56 ; ECtHR, Rekvényi, para 43 ; ECtHR, De Diego Nafría, para 37 ; ECtHR, Palomo Sánchez and Others, para 76 ; ECtHR, di Giovanni, para 69 ; ECtHR, Catalan, paras 60–61; ECtHR, Vogt, para 53 ; ECtHR, Poyraz, paras 57 and 78.

  101. 101.

    ECtHR, Matúz, para 39 ; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 71 ; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 63.

  102. 102.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 71.

  103. 103.

    ECtHR, Matúz, para 39.

  104. 104.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 6.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., para 71.

  106. 106.

    Lewis and Fasterling (2014), p. 79.

  107. 107.

    Schubert (2011), p. 758.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., p. 759.

  109. 109.

    The analysis focuses on the first applicant’s claim as he raised a violation of his right to freedom of expression under the Convention, while the two other applicants raised violation of their right of privacy under Article 8 of the Convention, an analysis which would go beyond the scope of this book.

  110. 110.

    ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 7.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., para 8.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., para 10.

  113. 113.

    Ibid., paras 41–48.

  114. 114.

    Ibid., paras 101–103, translation “The Court considers that the information disclosed by the applicant was undoubtedly of public interest. The interception of telephone communications is of particular importance in a society which has undergone surveillance by the secret service during the communist regime. … civil society was directly affected by the information disclosed as anyone could have had their telephone communication intercepted … Furthermore, the Court itself has been repeatedly committed to be satisfied that there exist adequate and effective safeguards against abuse in the area, since a system of surveillance designed to protect national security entails the risk of undermining or even destroying democracy on the ground of defending it… In view of the above, the Court considers that the information disclosed by the applicant had to do with abuse by high-ranking officials and with the democratic foundations of the State. There can be no doubt that these are very important issues related to the political debate in a democratic society, of which public opinion has a legitimate interest of being informed”. In relation to system of secret surveillance see also ECtHR, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], Appl. no. 28341/95, 4 May 2000, paras 59-60; ECtHR, Klass and Others v. Germany, Appl. no. 5029/71, 6 September 1978, paras 49–50.

  115. 115.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 75 (emphasis added); ECtHR, Heinisch, para 67; ECtHR, Gawlik, para 75; see also ECtHR, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, para 65; a contrario, see ECtHR, Soares, para 47.

  116. 116.

    ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 107.

  117. 117.

    ECtHR, Gawlik, paras 77–78.

  118. 118.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 75; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 67; ECtHR, Marchenko, para 50; see also ECtHR, Castells, para 46.

  119. 119.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 79.

  120. 120.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 85 (emphasis added); see also ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 95; ECtHR, Orelian Oprea, para 71; ECtHR, Marchenko, para 50 ; see also in relation to defamation cases : ECtHR, Palomo Sánchez and Others, para 73; ECtHR, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], Appl. no. 23118/93, 25 November 1999, para 52.

  121. 121.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 91.

  122. 122.

    PA Resolution 1729 (2010) Protection of “whistle-blowers”.

  123. 123.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 80 ; ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 107; ECtHR, Gawlik, para 75.

  124. 124.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 71.

  125. 125.

    In the context of press freedom see ECtHR, Stoll, para 110.

  126. 126.

    In reference to the PA Resolution 1551 (2007) Fair trial issues in criminal cases concerning espionage or divulging State secrets; see also ECtHR, Stoll, para 111; ECtHR, Gîrleanu v. Romania, Appl. no. 50376/09, 26 June 2018, para 88.

  127. 127.

    ECtHR, Stoll, para 112.

  128. 128.

    ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 110.

  129. 129.

    ECtHR, Stoll, para 137; ECtHR, Gîrleanu, para 94; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 64.

  130. 130.

    ECtHR, Stoll, para 137; ECtHR, Gîrleanu, para 94; ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 110; ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 83; ECtHR, Matúz, para 35; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 64.

  131. 131.

    ECtHR, Stoll, para 137; see also ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 110; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 64.

  132. 132.

    ECtHR, Stoll, para 138; see also ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 111.

  133. 133.

    ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 52; see also ECtHR, Animal Defenders International v. United Kingdom [GC], Appl. no. 48876/08, 22 April 2013, para 108.

  134. 134.

    ECtHR, Matúz, para 35.

  135. 135.

    ECtHR, Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, Appl. no. 39128/05, 20 October 2009, paras 54–56.

  136. 136.

    ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, paras 104 and 111-112; ECtHR, Matúz, para 49 ; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, paras 64-65.

  137. 137.

    ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 120; ECtHR, Matúz, para 50; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, paras 76–77.

  138. 138.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 76; see also ECtHR, Heinisch, para 68.

  139. 139.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 90.

  140. 140.

    ECtHR, Bucur and Toma.

  141. 141.

    ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 86.

  142. 142.

    ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 63.

  143. 143.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 89; see also ECtHR, Gawlik, para 79.

  144. 144.

    ECtHR, Marchenko, para 51.

  145. 145.

    In relation to national security matters see ECtHR, Hadjianastassiou, para 45 ; ECtHR, Stoll, para 130 ; ECtHR, Gîrleanu, para 89; in relation to whistleblowing see ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 114; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, paras 47 and 62.

  146. 146.

    ECtHR, Hadjianastassiou, para 45.

  147. 147.

    ECtHR, Stoll, para 136.

  148. 148.

    ECtHR, Gîrleanu, para 89.

  149. 149.

    Ibid.

  150. 150.

    ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 49; ECtHR, Stoll, para 111.

  151. 151.

    ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 48.

  152. 152.

    ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 115.

  153. 153.

    Ibid., para 114.

  154. 154.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 77; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 69.

  155. 155.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 77; ECtHR, Kudeshkina, para 95.

  156. 156.

    ECtHR, Haseldine (A) ; ECtHR, Balenović (A).

  157. 157.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 77; ECtHR, Heinisch, para 69.

  158. 158.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 84; ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 117.

  159. 159.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 80; a contrario see ECtHR, Soares, paras 46–49.

  160. 160.

    ECtHR, Heinisch, para 85 ; see also ECtHR, Kudeshkina para 95.

  161. 161.

    ECtHR, Cossey v. United Kingdom, Appl. no. 10843/84, 27 September 1990, para 35.

  162. 162.

    ECtHR, Chapman v. United Kingdom [GC], Appl. no. 27238/95, 18 January 2001, para 70.

  163. 163.

    See CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7, Appendix, para 22; Article 6(1)(a) Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law [ “EU Whistleblower Directive”], OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17.

  164. 164.

    The original phrase by the Venice Commission reads as follow : “the protection the law offers to the whistleblowers should be primarily based on the service to society, and not on the question whether the person who rendered this service was self-interested or not”, Venice Commission, Op. No. 829/2015, para 73.

  165. 165.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 78 ; see also ECtHR, Heinisch, para 70.

  166. 166.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 95; see also ECtHR, Heinisch, para 91; ECtHR, Bucur and Toma, para 119; ECtHR, Görmüş and Others, para 74 ; ECtHR, Marchenko, para 51 ; ECtHR, Kudeshkina, paras 99-100; in accordance with Art. 46(4) ECHR, the ECtHR can determine whether a State has failed to comply with its ruling, upon request of the CM.

  167. 167.

    ECtHR, Guja, para 95 ; see also ECtHR, Heinisch, para 91 ; ECtHR, Matúz, para 48.

  168. 168.

    ECtHR, Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], Appl. no. 17224/11, 27 June 2017, para 80.

  169. 169.

    ECtHR, Herbai, para 40; ECtHR, Langner, para 47.

  170. 170.

    ECtHR, Glor v. Switzerland, Appl. no. 13444/04, 30 April 2009, para 75.

  171. 171.

    ECtHR, Rubins v. Latvia, Appl. no. 79040/12, 13 January 2015.

  172. 172.

    ECtHR, Aurelian Oprea v. Romania, Appl. no. 12138/08, 19 January 2016.

  173. 173.

    ECtHR, Rubins, para 8.

  174. 174.

    Ibid., para 9.

  175. 175.

    Ibid., para 55.

  176. 176.

    Ibid., para 9.

  177. 177.

    Ibid., para 52.

  178. 178.

    Ibid., para 29.

  179. 179.

    Ibid. [1) public interest and 3) authenticity of the information, para 85; 2) reporting channels, para 88; 4) motives of the applicant, paras 86–89; 5) damage suffered, paras 90-91; 6) severity of the sanction, para 92].

  180. 180.

    Ibid., para 87.

  181. 181.

    Ibid., para 88.

  182. 182.

    Ibid., para 87.

  183. 183.

    Ibid., paras 86 et seq.

  184. 184.

    Ibid., para 88.

  185. 185.

    ECtHR, Aurelian Oprea, para 6.

  186. 186.

    Ibid., paras 9–10.

  187. 187.

    Ibid., paras 16 et seq.

  188. 188.

    Ibid., para 41.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., para 69.

  190. 190.

    Ibid.

  191. 191.

    Ibid. [1) public interest, para 65; 3) authenticity of the information; paras 66-67; 4) motives of the applicant, paras 69-71; 2) reporting channel, para 71 in fine; 5) damage suffered, para 72; 6) severity of the sanction, para 76].

  192. 192.

    Ibid., para 59.

  193. 193.

    ECtHR, Rubins, paras 88–89.

  194. 194.

    ECtHR, Aurelian Oprea, para 69.

  195. 195.

    Junod (2009), p. 249.

  196. 196.

    Ibid., pp. 249 et seq.

  197. 197.

    ECtHR, Guja v. Republic of Moldova (No. 2), Appl. no. 1085/10, 27 February 2018, para 33; see also ECtHR, Bochan v. Ukraine (No.2) [GC], Appl. no. 22251/08, 5 February 2015, para 33.

  198. 198.

    ECtHR, Guja (No. 2), para 34; see also ECtHR, Scozzari and Giunta, v. Italy [GC], Appl. nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, 13 July 2000, para 249 ; ECtHR, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, Appl. no. 71386/10, 25 April 2013, paras 247–249.

  199. 199.

    ECtHR, Guja (No. 2), para 35; see also ECtHR, Bochan (No. 2), para 36; ECtHR, Mehemi v. France (No. 2), Appl. no. 53470/99, 10 April 2003, para 43.

  200. 200.

    ECtHR, Guja (No. 2), para 36; ECtHR, Egmez v. Cyprus (Admissibility), Appl. no. 12214/07, 18 September 2012, para 54.

  201. 201.

    ECtHR, Guja v. Republic of Moldova (No. 2), Appl. no. 1085/10, 27 February 2018.

  202. 202.

    ECtHR, Guja (No. 2), para 57 (emphasis added).

  203. 203.

    Junod (2009), p. 259; Kafteranis and Brockhaus (2020).

  204. 204.

    see Reply of the ECtHR to a question by the author, dated 11 March 2021, “[t]he Court has no internal whistleblowing rules”.

References

  • Giegerich T (2013) Wirkung und Rang der EMRK in den Rechtsordnungen der Mitgliedsstaaten. In: Dörr O, Grote R, Marauhn T (eds) EMRK/GG Konkordanzkommentar zum europäischen und deutschen Grundrechtsschutz, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Junod V (2009) La liberté d’expression du Whistleblower - Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (Grande Chambre). Guja c. Moldavie. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 20(77):227–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafteranis D, Brockhaus R (2020) Time to reconsider Strasbourg’s whistleblower case law. European Law Blog

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert Abdelgawad E (2017) European Convention on Human Rights. In: Schmahl S, Breuer M (eds) The Council of Europe: its law and policies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 228–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D, Fasterling B (2014) Leaks, legislation and freedom of speech: how can the law effectively promote public-interest whistleblowing? Int Labour Rev 153(1):71–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlachter M (2012) Kündigungen wegen “Whistleblowing”? - Der Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit vor dem EGMR, Besprechung des Urteils EGMR v. 21.7.2011 – 28274/08. Recht der Arbeit:108–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert C (2011) Whistle-blowing after Heinisch v. Germany: much ado about nothing. German Yearb Int Law 54:753–763

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Hava Charlotte Lan Yurttagül

Authors
  1. Hava Charlotte Lan Yurttagül
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yurttagül, H.C.L. (2021). Whistleblower Protection Under the European Convention on Human Rights. In: Whistleblower Protection by the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union. European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78059-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78059-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78058-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78059-3

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation