The draft Whist­leb­lower Act: what com­pa­nies need to keep in mind

At the start of April, the Federal Minis­try of Jus­ti­ce publis­hed a bill for an “Act for bet­ter pro­tec­tion of whistleblowers.”

The bill was based on Direc­ti­ve (EU) 2019/1937 (PDF) of 23 Octo­ber 2019 “on the pro­tec­tion of per­sons who report breaches of Uni­on law.”

The Direc­ti­ve set a dead­line of 17 Decem­ber 2021 for imple­men­ta­ti­on of the rele­vant pro­vi­si­ons into natio­nal law. Sin­ce Ger­man law­ma­kers fai­led to imple­ment the Direc­ti­ve befo­re the dead­line expi­red, a for­mal infrin­ge­ment pro­ce­du­re was initia­ted against Ger­ma­ny in Febru­a­ry 2022.

I.    What is it about?

Essen­ti­al­ly, the bill aims to pro­tect indi­vi­du­als (“whist­leb­lo­wers”) who publish infor­ma­ti­on of gre­at public impor­t­ance which was obtai­ned from a secret or pro­tec­ted source, par­ti­cu­lar­ly infor­ma­ti­on obtai­ned from an employ­ment relationship.

It pri­ma­ri­ly con­cerns infor­ma­ti­on rela­ting to cri­mi­nal acts, admi­nis­tra­ti­ve offen­ses and other legal vio­la­ti­ons in com­pa­nies or public authorities.

Under the cur­rent legal situa­ti­on, pro­tec­tions for such whist­leb­lo­wers are very incomplete.

Cur­rent prac­ti­ce in Ger­ma­ny is shaped by the case law of the civil and labor courts, which empha­si­ze the need to balan­ce the inte­rests of employees against tho­se of employers.

The pur­po­se of crea­ting the­se pro­tec­tions is to pro­vi­de legal cer­tain­ty for whist­leb­lo­wers and ensu­re that they will not be expo­sed to reta­lia­ti­on, such as ter­mi­na­ti­on, disci­pli­na­ry mea­su­res, discri­mi­na­ti­on or bullying.

II.    Who is affected?

The pro­po­sed law will app­ly to com­pa­nies with more than 250 employees, and com­pa­nies with more than 50 employees as of 2023, as well as muni­ci­pa­li­ties with more than 10,000 resi­dents.
The per­so­nal scope of the legis­la­ti­on is broad and inclu­des not only employees and public offi­cials, but also e.g. self-employed per­sons, share­hol­ders and peop­le who had know­ledge of vio­la­ti­ons befo­re ent­e­ring into the employ­ment relationship.

III.    Which pro­vi­si­ons will be included?

In terms of the mate­ri­al scope of the bill, the pro­po­sed pro­tec­tions go bey­ond the mini­mum requi­re­ments set in the EU Direc­ti­ve. For examp­le, the law will cover not only vio­la­ti­ons of EU law, but also vio­la­ti­ons of natio­nal law. An exten­si­ve repor­ting sys­tem will be set up to recei­ve and pro­cess infor­ma­ti­on from whist­leb­lo­wers. This sys­tem will have a dual struc­tu­re, con­sis­ting of an inter­nal repor­ting chan­nel wit­hin the com­pa­ny and an exter­nal repor­ting body at the federal level; whist­leb­lo­wers will have the right to choo­se bet­ween the­se two repor­ting channels.

Spe­ci­fi­cal­ly, com­pa­nies can estab­lish such a sys­tem by intro­du­cing an elec­tro­nic repor­ting sys­tem, inte­gra­ting whist­leb­lowing into their com­pli­an­ce depart­ment or appoin­ting a com­pa­ny ombudsperson.

The exter­nal repor­ting bodies at the federal level are the Federal Office of Jus­ti­ce and, in cases which fall under their spe­ci­fic juris­dic­tion, the finan­cial ser­vices regu­la­tors and the Federal Car­tel Office.

Whist­leb­lo­wers may only turn to the public if they recei­ve no respon­se from the repor­ting body wit­hin three mon­ths or if the­re are rea­son­ab­le grounds for assuming a “dan­ger to the public inte­rest.” The repor­ting bodies are gene­ral­ly requi­red to take action, except in the case of anony­mous reports.Moreover, the scope of this pro­vi­si­on exclu­des e.g. infor­ma­ti­on rela­ting to natio­nal secu­ri­ty, defen­se con­tracts or clas­si­fied infor­ma­ti­on, as well as tho­se which are sub­ject to medi­cal pri­va­cy or attorney-client privilege.

Vio­la­ti­ons of the law are to be sub­ject to penal­ty as admi­nis­tra­ti­ve offenses.

Whist­leb­lo­wers, com­pa­nies and public aut­ho­ri­ties may also be sub­ject to civil lia­bi­li­ty. Whist­leb­lo­wers who suf­fer reta­lia­ti­on becau­se of the infor­ma­ti­on they pro­vi­de may be able to assert claims for the resul­ting dama­ges. At the same time, whist­leb­lo­wers may be held liable for fal­se reports, if they act inten­tio­nal­ly or with gross negligence.

IV.    Out­look

Respon­ses to the pro­po­sed bill may be sub­mit­ted to the Minis­try of Jus­ti­ce through 11 May 2022, so that a cer­tain amount of chan­ges can be expec­ted. But we expect the legis­la­ti­ve pro­cess to advan­ce rapidly from this point on, and the new law should take effect in the autumn.

Com­pa­nies should also keep in mind that the Direc­ti­ve alrea­dy has a cer­tain amount of legal vali­di­ty, even though it has yet to be imple­men­ted into Ger­man law.

It is true that the Direc­ti­ve has no direct impact on the pri­va­te sec­tor, so that com­pa­nies are not yet requi­red to set up inter­nal repor­ting bodies and whist­leb­lo­wers do not yet have a direct claim against the com­pa­ny if they face retaliation.

Howe­ver, the Direc­ti­ve could still have an indi­rect impact, due to the fact that the courts are requi­red to inter­pret Ger­man law in con­for­mance with the Direc­ti­ve ever sin­ce the dead­line for imple­men­ta­ti­on expi­red. Accord­in­gly, we can­not rule out the pos­si­bi­li­ty that the courts will be gui­ded by the Directive’s pro­vi­si­ons in their inter­pre­ta­ti­on of unde­fi­ned legal terms. Affec­ted com­pa­nies should the­re­fo­re seek to imple­ment a whist­leb­lower sys­tem in a time­ly manner.


Stay up-to-date

We use your e-mail address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.