Whistleblower Protection in Europe between Guja and the 2019 EU Directive. Different Standards in the Light of Halet v. Luxembourg

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F24%3A10491227" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11220/24:10491227 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=5h2bP-YCe3" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=5h2bP-YCe3</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Whistleblower Protection in Europe between Guja and the 2019 EU Directive. Different Standards in the Light of Halet v. Luxembourg

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

In this article, we briefly highlight the key differences between the standards of whistleblower protection established by the Strasbourg jurisprudence on the one hand and the EU Whistleblower Directive on the other. In its judgment in Halet v. Luxembourg, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR had the opportunity to consider whether the concept of whistleblower protection set out in Guja needed to be revised or modified in the light of the Directive. It is surprising that the Grand Chamber completely ignored the impact of the EU Directive in its deliberations. Surely this was no accident. We find that the Court&apos;s approach in Halet v. Luxembourg sends a strong message not only to the States Parties to the ECHR, but also to the European Union and its Court of Justice.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Whistleblower Protection in Europe between Guja and the 2019 EU Directive. Different Standards in the Light of Halet v. Luxembourg

Popis výsledku anglicky

In this article, we briefly highlight the key differences between the standards of whistleblower protection established by the Strasbourg jurisprudence on the one hand and the EU Whistleblower Directive on the other. In its judgment in Halet v. Luxembourg, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR had the opportunity to consider whether the concept of whistleblower protection set out in Guja needed to be revised or modified in the light of the Directive. It is surprising that the Grand Chamber completely ignored the impact of the EU Directive in its deliberations. Surely this was no accident. We find that the Court&apos;s approach in Halet v. Luxembourg sends a strong message not only to the States Parties to the ECHR, but also to the European Union and its Court of Justice.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

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

Czech Yearbook of Public and Private International Law

ISSN

1805-0565

e-ISSN

1805-0999

Svazek periodika

2024

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

15

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

153-164

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-105001446831