Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:914
Date: 2025-11-18
Language of the case: Slovak
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovakia

Summary C-797/24 – 1 
Case C-797/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
18 November 2024 
Referring court: 
Správny súd v Bratislave (Slovakia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
15 November 2024 
Applicant: 
A.B.C.D. 
Respondent: 
Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky (Ministry of the Interior 
of the Slovak Republic) 
  
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 11. 2024 – CASE C-797/24 
 
2  
 
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2019/1937 – Article 20(1) and (3) – 
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – 
Protection of persons who report breaches of Union law – Measures of support – 
Measures for protection against retaliation – Right to be admitted to 
administrative court proceedings and civil judicial proceedings 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 20(1) and (3) of 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 (OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17) in conjunction 
with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Should Article 20(1) and (3) of 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, read in the context of Article 47 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted 
as meaning that the measures of support to which Member States must 
ensure access, as appropriate, for the persons referred to in Article 4 of the 
Directive also encompass the right of the competent authority within the 
meaning of the Directive to be admitted to any judicial proceedings 
whatsoever regardless of their nature, provided that a person referred to in 
Article 4 of the Directive is a participant in those proceedings? 
2. Should Article 20(1) and (3) of 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, read in the context of Article 47 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted 
as meaning that it is for the national court conducting the proceedings in 
which the person referred to in Article 4 of the Directive is a participant to 
assess whether the phrase ‘as appropriate’ applies when a person referred to 
in Article 4 of the Directive is to have access to support measures or when 
the competent authority within the meaning of the Directive is to have the 
right to grant support measures to the persons referred to in Article 4 of the 
Directive? 
3. Should Article 21(1) of 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, read in the context of Article 47 
MINISTERSTVO VNÚTRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
3 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted 
as meaning that the necessary measures to ensure that the persons referred to 
in Article 4 are protected against retaliation, which are to be taken by 
Member States, encompass an obligation for the Member State to ensure that 
the competent authority within the meaning of the Directive has the 
opportunity to be admitted to any judicial proceedings whatsoever, 
regardless of their nature, provided that the person referred to in Article 4 of 
the Directive is a participant in those judicial proceedings? 
Provisions of Community law relied on 
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 
(OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17): recitals 15, 36–38, 64, 90, 94, 95, 103, 104, 106, 108 and 
109, Article 1, Article 2(1)(b), Article 2(2), Article 4(1), Article 5(1), (2), (7), (9)–
(12) and (14), Article 20(1)–(3) and Article 21(1). 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Article 21(1) and 
Article 47. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zákon č. 162/2015 Z. z. Správny súdny poriadok (Law on Administrative Court 
Proceedings), as amended (‘SSP’): 
Pursuant to Paragraph 27(1) SSP, when examining the lawfulness of a decision or 
measure by a public authority, the administrative court shall also, upon request by 
the applicant, examine the lawfulness of a decision previously issued by the public 
authority or a measure previously adopted by the public authority upon which the 
decision or measure under examination is based, provided that the decision that 
was previously issued or the measure that was previously adopted was binding on 
the applicant and provided that the decision that was previously issued or the 
measure that was previously adopted has not been examined separately by an 
administrative court pursuant to Paragraph 6(2). If the public authority which 
issued the earlier decision or which adopted the earlier measure is not the 
respondent authority in the proceedings before the administrative court, it shall 
have the status of a participant in these proceedings pursuant to Paragraph 
32(3)(c). 
Pursuant to Paragraph 32(1) SSP, the participants in the proceedings shall be as 
follows: the applicant, the respondent authority and the other participants, unless 
this Law provides otherwise. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 32(3), the other participants shall be as follows: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 11. 2024 – CASE C-797/24 
 
4  
a) persons who were participants in the administrative proceedings, unless 
subparagraphs 4 and 5 provide otherwise, 
b) persons who must also be affected by the judgment handed down by the 
administrative court given the inseparable unity of their rights and obligations 
with those of the applicant or the participants in the administrative proceedings, 
c) persons who are recognised by law as participants. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 32(6) SSP, the participants referred to in subparagraph 3(a) 
and (b) may expressly waive their right to participate in the proceedings before the 
administrative court, either orally at the hearing and to be recorded in the minutes, 
or in writing with proof of authenticity of the signature or a verified electronic 
signature. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 33 SSP, if proceedings are not conducted as from their 
initiation with the participation of a person whose rights, legitimate interests and 
obligations are to be the subject of these proceedings, the administrative court, as 
soon as it becomes aware thereof, shall issue an order stating that said person is to 
be admitted as a participant in the proceedings. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 48 SSP, the public prosecutor shall have the status of a 
participant in proceedings which are initiated on the basis of his or her action or in 
which he or she acts. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 49(1) SSP: ‘The applicant must be represented by a lawyer 
in proceedings before an administrative court; this shall not apply if the applicant, 
his employee or a member of staff acting on his or her behalf or representing him 
or her before an administrative court has a Masters degree in law. The obligation 
to be represented shall also apply to the drafting of the appeal. The authority 
conferred on the lawyer must not be restricted.’ 
Pursuant to Paragraph 439(2)(a) SSP, an administrative appeal brought on a point 
of law against an order regulating the conduct of proceedings shall not be 
admissible. 
The referring court also makes reference to Paragraph 5(2) and (3), Paragraph 25 
and Paragraph 41(1) SSP (person participating in the proceedings). 
Zákon č. 54/2019 Z. z. o ochrane oznamovateľov protispoločenskej činnosti (Law 
No 54/2019 on the Protection of Whistleblowers of Anti-Social Activity), 
as amended (‘Law No 54/2019’): 
Pursuant to Paragraph 1(1) (Introductory provisions) of Law No 54/2019, this 
Law regulates: 
a) the conditions for granting protection to persons who remain in an 
employment relationship or another relationship of a similar nature in 
MINISTERSTVO VNÚTRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
5 
connection with the whistleblowing of a crime or another anti-social activity 
(‘anti-social activity’), 
b) the rights and obligations of whistleblowers of anti-social activity, and 
c) the establishment, status and jurisdiction of the Úrad na ochranu 
oznamovateľov (Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers; ‘the Office’). 
Pursuant to Paragraph 4(1) (Granting of protection in connection with criminal 
proceedings) of Law No 54/2019, if the public prosecutor asserts that the 
whistleblower who has requested protection pursuant to Paragraph 3(1) has made 
a legitimate report, he or she should be granted protection pursuant to Paragraph 7 
immediately, and the whistleblower, the employer and the Office should be 
notified thereof in writing; when the whistleblower is notified, he or she should 
also be provided with information about the rights and obligations accruing to him 
or her in connection with his or her status as a protected whistleblower. The 
whistleblower shall become a protected whistleblower as of the date when the 
employer is served with the notification that the whistleblower has been granted 
protection. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 7(1) (Protection of whistleblowers reporting serious anti-
social activity) of Law No 54/2019, the employer may only effect a legal 
transaction or issue a decision, acting vis-à-vis a protected whistleblower and 
within the framework of the employment relationship (‘act under employment 
law’), with the Office’s consent if the whistleblower has not consented thereto; in 
the event that a protected whistleblower is a regular soldier, the Office’s consent is 
only required where stipulated in a separate provision. The Office’s consent shall 
not be required if a right is granted on the basis of an act under employment law, 
or in the case of an act under employment law relating to the termination of the 
employment relationship and resulting from a legal event that is not at the 
employer’s discretion. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 13(1) of Law No 54/2019, the Office shall be established as 
an independent government authority with a country-wide remit that protects the 
rights and legitimate interests of whistleblowers in connection with reports of anti-
social activity. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 13(6)(b) of Law No 54/2019, the Office shall have 
oversight of the application of this Law; the exercise of oversight shall be 
governed by the fundamental principles of oversight on the basis of special 
provisions. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 13(6)(c)(1) of Law No 54/2019, the Office shall monitor 
compliance with the regulations on the granting of protection and its exercise. 
Pursuant to Paragraph 13(11) of Law No 54/2019, the Office shall be entitled to 
participate in proceedings in accordance with the general provisions on judicial 
proceedings provided that the whistleblower is one of the procedural parties. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 11. 2024 – CASE C-797/24 
 
6  
Pursuant to Paragraph 25b of Law No 54/2019, this Law transposes the legally 
binding acts of the European Union referred to in the Annex. The Annex to Law 
No 54/2019 contains a list of the legally binding acts of the European Union that 
have been transposed, which include Directive (EU) 2019/1937 as amended by 
Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
7 October 2020 (OJ 2020 L 347, p. 1). 
The referring court also makes reference to Paragraph 3(2) and Paragraph 12 of 
Law No 54/2019. 
The explanatory memorandum for the draft of Paragraph 13(11) of Law 
No 54/2019 reads as follows: ‘The Law also ensures that the Office has a strong 
procedural position in various types of proceedings, including both judicial and 
administrative proceedings. It will be a participant in proceedings relating to 
administrative offences if the whistleblower is granted protection as part of these 
proceedings. As in the case of civil proceedings, it is proposed that the Office 
should be allowed to participate in the proceedings if one of the procedural parties 
is a whistleblower. The substance of the dispute is not a decisive factor; in civil 
proceedings as well, such a step will be at the discretion of the Office in the light 
of its mission, remit and rights.’ 
Zákon č. 73/1998 Z. z. o štátnej službe príslušníkov Policajného zboru, Slovenskej 
informačnej služby, Zboru väzenskej a justičnej stráže Slovenskej republiky a 
Železničnej polície (Law No 73/1998 on the public service of members of the 
Police Force, of the Slovak intelligence service, of the Corps of Prison Wardens 
and Judiciary Guards of the Slovak Republic and of the Railway Police), 
as amended (‘Law No 73/1998’): Paragraph 46(1)(b) and Paragraph 46(2). 
Zákon č. 300/2005 Z. z. Trestný zákon (Law No 300/2005 – Criminal Code), 
as amended (‘Criminal Code’): Paragraph 20, Paragraph 140(c), Paragraph 
326(1)(a), Paragraph 326(2)(c), Paragraph 326(3)(c), Paragraph 344(1)(c) and 
Paragraph 344(2)(a). 
Zákon č. 160/2015 Z. z. Civilný sporový poriadok (Law No 160/2015 – Code of 
Civil Procedure), as amended (‘CSP’), regulating civil judicial proceedings. 
Paragraph 81 CSP, regulating interventions. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant is the former director of one of the departments of the Národná 
kriminálná agentúra Prezídia Policajného zboru (National Crime Agency of the 
Presidium of the Police Force). On 27 October 2023, the minister vnútra 
Slovenskej republiky (Minister of Internal Affairs of the Slovak Republic) issued 
Personnel Order No 433 (‘the Personnel Order’) temporarily removing the 
applicant from his role within the public service pursuant to Paragraph 46(1)(b) 
and Paragraph 46(2) of Law No 73/1998 with effect from 27 October 2023 and 
MINISTERSTVO VNÚTRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
7 
until the final termination of the criminal proceedings. The decision to issue the 
Personnel Order was justified on the grounds that on 13 September 2021 a police 
investigation team had initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant and 
charged him with a crime of perverting the course of justice pursuant to Paragraph 
344(1)(c) and Paragraph 344(2)(a) of the Criminal Code concurrently with a crime 
of misusing the powers of a public official pursuant to Paragraph 326(1)(a) and 
Paragraph 326(3)(c) of the Criminal Code; his involvement in these crimes was 
classified as aiding and abetting pursuant to Paragraph 20 of the Criminal Code. 
On 14 September 2021, the police investigation team charged the applicant with 
committing a crime of misusing the powers of a public official pursuant to 
Paragraph 326(1)(a) and Paragraph 326(2)(c) of the Criminal Code in conjunction 
with the provisions of Paragraph 140(c) of the Criminal Code; his involvement in 
the crime was classified as aiding and abetting pursuant to Paragraph 20 of the 
Criminal Code. In the opinion of the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Slovak 
Republic, allowing the applicant to remain in his role in the public service would 
have posed a threat to an important interest of the public service and to the course 
of the investigation in the proceedings against him. 
2 The applicant lodged an appeal against the Personnel Order issued by the Minister 
of Internal Affairs, and the respondent authority examined this appeal in a 
decision dated 23 February 2024 (‘decision by the respondent authority’), in 
which it dismissed the appeal and upheld the Personnel Order. 
3 On 5 October 2023, the Úrad špeciálnej prokuratúry Generálnej prokuratúry 
Slovenskej republiky (Special Prosecutor’s Office of the Prosecutor-General’s 
Office of the Slovak Republic) adopted a measure (‘the measure’) in which it 
firstly, pursuant to Paragraph 4(1) of Law No 54/2019, granted the applicant 
protection pursuant to Paragraph 7 of Law No 54/2019, and secondly, pursuant to 
Paragraph 1(4)(a) and Paragraph 12 of this Law in conjunction with Paragraph 
3(2) thereof, also granted protection to a friend or family member of the applicant. 
The measure was served to the respondent authority on 18 October 2023. 
4 On 21 April 2024, the applicant lodged a general administrative appeal with the 
Správny súd v Bratislave (Administrative Court in Bratislava, ‘the Administrative 
Court’) in which he moved for the decision by the respondent authority and the 
Personnel Order to be annulled and for the costs of the proceedings to be 
reimbursed; he also requested that the administrative court should give the appeal 
suspensory effect until a final judgment on the merits of the case had been handed 
down. 
5 In a letter dated 28 June 2024, the Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Office for the 
Protection of Whistleblowers, ‘the Office’) asked to be admitted to the 
proceedings as a participant, invoking Paragraph 32(3)(c) SSP and Paragraph 
13(11) of Law No 54/2019. The Office’s request was served to the respondent 
authority on 22 October 2024, and to the applicant on 23 October 2024. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 11. 2024 – CASE C-797/24 
 
8  
6 By order dated 4 October 2024 and which became final on 19 October 2024, the 
Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request that the appeal of 21 April 
2024 should be given suspensory effect. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 In the appeal, the applicant asserted that there were no other participants in the 
proceedings pursuant to Paragraph 32(3) SSP or persons participating in the 
proceedings pursuant to Paragraph 41(1) SSP. 
8 The applicant’s arguments in the appeal are structured inter alia around the fact 
that the respondent authority failed to fulfil its obligation, prior to issuing the 
Personnel Order, to obtain consent from the Office to do so. 
9 In a letter dated 6 November 2024, the applicant stated with reference to the 
Office’s request to be admitted to the proceedings as a participant that he 
consented to the Office being admitted to the proceedings. 
10 In a letter dated 8 November 2024, the respondent authority stated with reference 
to the Office’s request to be admitted to the proceedings as a participant that there 
was no legal right entitling the Office to be admitted to the administrative court 
proceedings, hence moving for the Office’s request to be dismissed. It also stated 
that the Office could have been admitted to the disputed civil proceedings as an 
intervener (Paragraph 81 CSP), but not to the administrative court proceedings. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
11 By referring the matter for a preliminary ruling, the Administrative Court aims 
merely to identify the participants in administrative court proceedings in the 
interest of legal certainty and in the interest of fulfilling legitimate expectations in 
a rule-of-law state. The Administrative Court wishes to emphasise that identifying 
the participants in administrative court proceedings does not prejudice the 
decision on the merits of the case. The questions referred do not relate to the 
decision on the merits of the case. 
12 The proceedings relating to the examination of the lawfulness of the Personnel 
Order issued by the Minister of Internal Affairs and the decision issued by the 
respondent authority are being conducted in accordance with the Law on 
Administrative Court Proceedings within the framework of administrative court 
proceedings instead of within the framework of civil judicial proceedings, since 
the Personnel Order by the Minister of Internal Affairs and the decision by the 
respondent authority were issued as part of administrative proceedings and as 
administrative decisions subject to review by the administrative courts. 
13 It follows from Paragraph 13(11) of Law No 54/2019 that the Office has the 
opportunity to participate in judicial proceedings if the whistleblower is one of the 
MINISTERSTVO VNÚTRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
9 
procedural parties. It follows from the explanatory memorandum for Law 
No 54/2019 that the legislator’s intention was to allow the Office to participate in 
civil proceedings if the whistleblower is one of the procedural parties. There are 
no procedural parties in administrative court proceedings. Administrative court 
proceedings have participants, whereas civil judicial proceedings have procedural 
parties. This means that there is a difference in terms of the form of participation 
in civil proceedings and administrative court proceedings. The provisions of 
Paragraph 25 SSP stipulate that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 
concerning intervention (Paragraph 81 CSP) do not apply, and hence the 
Administrative Court’s position concerning the identification of the participants in 
administrative court proceedings is to be governed exclusively by the provisions 
of Paragraph 32 SSP. At the same time, it follows from Paragraph 32(3)(c) SSP 
that the other participants in the proceedings are anyone recognised by law as a 
participant in the proceedings. The Law on Administrative Court Proceedings 
recognises the public prosecutor (Paragraph 48 SSP) and the public authority 
(Paragraph 27(1) SSP) as participants in the proceedings. Neither the Law on 
Administrative Court Proceedings nor any other law recognises the Office as a 
participant in the proceedings. If the legislator’s intention was to recognise the 
Office as a participant in the proceedings, it had the opportunity to do so, since 
Law No 54/2019 was adopted after the Law on Administrative Court Proceedings. 
However, the Office was not recognised as a participant in administrative court 
proceedings conducted pursuant to the Law on Administrative Court Proceedings 
by the legislator in either the Law on Administrative Court Proceedings or Law 
No 54/2019. A literal and grammatical interpretation of Paragraph 32(3)(c) SSP 
and Paragraph 13(11) of Law No 54/2019 in conjunction with an interpretation 
based on the explanatory memorandum for the draft of Law No 54/2019 would 
mean that the status and rights of the Office would differ depending on the type of 
court proceedings in which the whistleblower was participating, provided that the 
court regarded it as proven that the proceedings related to the whistleblower as an 
individual. At the same time, such an interpretation would mean that the law (Law 
No 54/2019 and the Law on Administrative Court Proceedings) would establish 
two categories of whistleblowers. A situation would arise in which the Office 
could act as a participant in civil judicial proceedings (presumably as an 
intervener) even though it would not be granted the status of a participant in 
administrative court proceedings pursuant to the Law on Administrative Court 
Proceedings. 
14 Administrative court proceedings are one of the safeguards ensuring that 
fundamental human rights and freedoms and the rights and legitimate interests of 
participants in administrative proceedings are protected (Paragraph 5(2) SSP). 
When examining a case, the administrative court takes into consideration the need 
to comply with the law and protect the public interest (Paragraph 5(3) SSP). Legal 
representation is mandatory in proceedings relating to the examination of a 
personnel order issued by the Minister of Internal Affairs and a decision issued by 
the respondent authority concerning the appeal (Paragraph 49(1) SSP). It follows 
from the above that consideration must also be given to the interpretation of 
Paragraph 13(11) of Law No 54/2019, according to which the very nature of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 11. 2024 – CASE C-797/24 
 
10  
system of administrative justice implements the sense and purpose of the 
Directive and Law No 54/2019, and the Office’s participation in administrative 
court proceedings is unnecessary. 
15 If the Administrative Court – in keeping with national law – did not grant the 
Office the status of a participant in the proceedings, there would arise the risk of a 
procedural error, which could serve as a cause for setting aside the ruling handed 
down by the Administrative Court in the main proceedings on the grounds of said 
error in the event that Union law should be interpreted to mean that the Office 
should be a participant in the administrative court proceedings. If, however, the 
Administrative Court – contrary to national law – did grant the Office the status of 
a participant in the administrative court proceedings, it would award it rights to 
which it was not entitled, including the right to bring an administrative appeal on a 
point of law against the ruling handed down by the Administrative Court in the 
main proceedings; moreover, the interpretation of Union law would remain 
unclear if the matter were not referred for a preliminary ruling. Furthermore, if the 
Office were granted a status to which it was not entitled, the Administrative Court, 
as a result of the improper procedural step, would unlawfully encroach upon the 
right to the protection of privacy and personal data of the applicant and of the 
persons whose personal data were included in the applicant’s report of anti-social 
activity and in the case files. The Administrative Court therefore believes that the 
provisions of national law lack clarity and are potentially vague in relation to the 
transposition of the Directive. 
16 The Office has requested that it be admitted as an ‘other participant’ in various 
judicial proceedings pending before the Administrative Court that relate to 
personnel changes within the police force. This fact also confirms the need for an 
interpretation of Union law. 
17 The Administrative Court asserts that there should be no remedy against a 
decision to grant or deny the status of an ‘other participant’ in proceedings [see 
the similar order of the Najvyšší správny súd Slovenskej republiky (Supreme 
Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic) of 30 September 2021, published in 
the Zbierka stanovísk a rozhodnutí Najvyššieho správneho súdu Slovenskej 
republiky (Collection of Opinions and Decisions of the Supreme Administrative 
Court of the Slovak Republic 1/2022, No 13/2022)]. Further to the above, and 
having regard to the provisions of Article 267(3) TFEU, the Administrative Court 
is obliged to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
18 The Administrative Court believes that the case incorporates an element of Union 
law, since the report of anti-social activity submitted by the applicant pursuant to 
Law No 54/2019 concerns a violation of the integrity of specific criminal 
proceedings and the contesting of these proceedings with the aim of providing 
assistance to the suspects or accused who are being prosecuted in these 
proceedings. Further to the above, the Administrative Court has concluded that the 
applicant’s report concerns a matter affecting the financial interests of the Union 
within the meaning of Article 325 TFEU. 
MINISTERSTVO VNÚTRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
11 
19 The Administrative Court is essentially asking the following by means of the 
questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 
(i) does the Member State have full discretion to regulate the right of the Office 
(as the competent authority pursuant to Article 5(14) of the Directive) to be 
admitted to judicial proceedings in which the whistleblower (the person 
referred to in Article 4 of the Directive) is a participant, and can the Member 
State hence, through the provisions of national law, permit the Office 
admission to proceedings within the framework of civil judicial proceedings 
and deny it admission to proceedings within the framework of administrative 
court proceedings? 
(ii) if the provisions of national law of the Member State do not permit the 
Office to be admitted to the judicial proceedings in which the person 
referred to in Article 4 of the Directive is a participant, are these provisions 
compatible with Article 47 of the Charter and, in view of this, does the right 
guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter to an effective legal remedy and a 
hearing by an impartial tribunal, in the case of whistleblowers reporting anti-
social activity (the persons referred to in Article 4 of the Directive), also 
encompass the right of the Office (the competent authority within the 
meaning of the Directive) to be admitted to any type of judicial proceedings, 
without making any distinction whatsoever between said proceedings? 
(iii) is the admission of the Office (the competent authority within the meaning 
of the Directive) to administrative court proceedings in which the 
whistleblower (the person referred to in Article 4 of the Directive) is a 
participant, and which also involve an examination of whether retaliation 
has occurred as a result of reporting the anti-social activity, implemented 
under Union law as a measure of protection against retaliation within the 
meaning of Article 21(1) of the Directive and also a measure of support 
pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Directive? This distinction is significant 
since Article 20(1) of the Directive states in relation to measures of support 
that the persons referred to in Article 4 shall have access, as appropriate, to 
support measures, and Article 21(1) of the Directive, which relates to 
measures of protection against retaliation, does not contain the phrase ‘as 
appropriate’; 
(iv) in the event that, on the basis of Article 20(1) of the Directive, the Office 
(the competent authority within the meaning of the Directive) is to be 
admitted to the administrative court proceedings in which the whistleblower 
(the person referred to in Article 4 of the Directive) is a participant, should 
the national court examine, with reference to the circumstances of the case 
in the main proceedings, whether the phrase ‘as appropriate’ applies, and is 
it for the national court or the Member State to decide on this matter? 
(v) in the event that, on the basis of Article 21(1) of the Directive, the Office 
(the competent authority within the meaning of the Directive) is to be 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 11. 2024 – CASE C-797/24 
 
12  
admitted to the administrative court proceedings in which the whistleblower 
(the person referred to in Article 4 of the Directive) is a participant, should 
the national court admit the Office to these proceedings regardless of 
whether the phrase ‘as appropriate’ applies, and irrespective of the 
provisions of national law? 
20 Pursuant to Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the 
Administrative Court requests that the expedited procedure be applied since the 
nature of the case requires that it be dealt with within a short time.