Pitfalls in Implementing the EU Whistleblower Directive

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F24%3A10481649" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11220/24:10481649 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=ir9ojRVGv2" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=ir9ojRVGv2</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/wrlae-2024-0002" target="_blank" >10.2478/wrlae-2024-0002</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Pitfalls in Implementing the EU Whistleblower Directive

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

In this paper, we focus on two conceptual problems associated with the EU Whistleblower Directive and point out issues that may undermine or even frustrate the successful implementation of the Directive in a national context. While fully acknowledging strong arguments for, and undeniable benefits of, speaking in favour of EU whistleblower protection, it has to be noted that a specific form of forced gold-plating calling for the extension of the material scope of protection may complicate the interpretation of the autonomous part of legislation and lead to legal insecurity. Moreover, new elements of whistleblower protection as introduced by the Directive diverge from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The introduction of higher standards of protection in favour of whistleblowers does not raise problems in relations between the state and the individual, but some EU rules may cause problems in horizontal relations between private individuals, since fair balancing of interests as required by Strasbourg jurisprudence may be not always guaranteed.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Pitfalls in Implementing the EU Whistleblower Directive

Popis výsledku anglicky

In this paper, we focus on two conceptual problems associated with the EU Whistleblower Directive and point out issues that may undermine or even frustrate the successful implementation of the Directive in a national context. While fully acknowledging strong arguments for, and undeniable benefits of, speaking in favour of EU whistleblower protection, it has to be noted that a specific form of forced gold-plating calling for the extension of the material scope of protection may complicate the interpretation of the autonomous part of legislation and lead to legal insecurity. Moreover, new elements of whistleblower protection as introduced by the Directive diverge from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The introduction of higher standards of protection in favour of whistleblowers does not raise problems in relations between the state and the individual, but some EU rules may cause problems in horizontal relations between private individuals, since fair balancing of interests as required by Strasbourg jurisprudence may be not always guaranteed.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration &amp; Economics

ISSN

2084-1264

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

Vol 14

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

PL - Polská republika

Počet stran výsledku

17

Strana od-do

—

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—