- ÚOO criticizes the draft amendment to the Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers.
- The office warns against the weakening of protection and the risk of intimidation of whistleblowers.
- The danger of retroactivity in the amendment was described by the ÚOO as inadmissible.
- The condition for the protection of whistleblowers may be in conflict with the EU directive.
The Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers (ÚOO) criticizes draft amendment to the Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers from the workshop of members of parliament from the Hlas-SD coalition. He claims that it weakens the position of whistleblowers and opens up space for their intimidation. He is also concerned about the risk of fines from the European Union for violating the European directive. This was stated by the office in the statement provided to TASR by the department of prevention and communication of the ÚOO.
The Office disagreed with the intention that the employer could appeal against the granting of protection to the whistleblower and request a review of the reasons for the protection every six months. He fears that this will create room for repeated and bullying proposals. “What was supposed to serve as prevention and encouragement for those who hesitate to speak about violations of the law at work can turn into a legal tool for bullying and intimidation of whistleblowers,” stated the president of the office, Zuzana Dlugošová.
The ÚOO also drew attention to the fact that the amendment will allow the review of protection retroactively, which, according to him, represents impermissible retroactivity. “This is an interference with the rights that have already been granted to the whistleblowers by a valid decision,” he pointed out. He also described as problematic the proposal according to which the whistleblower should receive protection only if the notification directly concerns the employer.
“In practice, this would mean that he has to prove the identity of the suspects, which is often impossible. As a rule, this information is not known at the time of filing the notification, and it is the task of the law enforcement authorities to find it. Such narrowing of protection is contrary to the directive of the European Union,” he added.
Deputies for the Hlas-SD coalition submitted an amendment to the Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers of Anti-Social Activities to the National Council of the Slovak Republic. In it, they suggested, among other things, that the whistleblower of serious anti-social activity could receive protection if the notification directly concerns the employer. They argued that the employer’s rights are currently “significantly” restricted when providing whistleblower protection.
