Source: https://wbos.cz/clanek-detail/News/47/en
Timestamp: 2020-02-25 12:52:22
Document Index: 300974610

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 368', '§ 368', '§ 332', '§ 52', '§ 16', '§ 41', '§ 368']

Whistleblowers - Whistleblowing in the Czech Republic: status quo
Whistleblowing in the Czech Republic: status quo
Summary of the present state of the legal regulation of whistleblowing in the Czech Republic in terms of existing or pending legislation.....
Whistleblowing is still rather new issue in the Czech Republic. Most people do not know what this term means and neither the language nor legal theory has developed precise name for it yet, unless defamatory one (see Public opinion). Therefore, there is no comprehensive legislation on public interest disclosure neither in force nor pending. Moreover, there is currently no visible support in governmental circles, despite pre-electoral proclamations, or among MPs for adoption of comprehensive law regulating whistleblowing in the Czech Republic.
As regards existing legislation, there are several laws concerning the legal status of those who want to report unlawful or unethical behaviour but this regulation is partial and, as can be seen below, not always in favour of potential whistleblowers.
1. First of all, the Criminal Code No. 40/2009 Coll., as amended, does not contain any provision regulating protection of a person who wants to report a crime in terms of whistleblowing. Of course, it is possible to report criminal behaviour anonymously just by submitting anonymous complaint to the Police or Prosecutor Office1) but these complaints are usually not being taken that seriously by investigators unless accompanied by comprehensive factual evidence. If an employee wants to report criminal behaviour (e.g. at his workplace) and he is courageous enough to make non-anonymous complaint, he is entitled only to basic protection against retaliation. He may, for instance, request the Police not to disclose his identity by mentioning his true address in investigation file, instead he can just ask for listing his contact address. But this kind of protection of identity is certainly not enough because name of claimant is, of course, sufficient source of information for those with access to investigation file, e.g. advocates of the suspect. There is, however, a possibility to claim a special protection as a witness in criminal proceedings in the event of serious circumstances (threat of serious harm to health or property, infringement of constitutional rights etc.) but it is up to the Police to decide if the claim is justified or not.2) In case the claim is justified, the identity and image of a witness is covert during the investigation. Still though, any experienced advocate of the suspect would find out identity of the claimant just by interconnecting facts of the case with the crime scene (e.g. workplace).
Moreover, the Criminal Code punishes „not-reporting“ of certain serious crimes enlisted in § 368 but does not provide any protection to those who do so, making it rather disproportionate3) and that may be the reason why employees prefer remaining silent if something wrong is going on at the workplace.
„§ 368
Not-reporting of crime
(1) A person who learns from reliable sources about a crime committed by another person, including murder, inflicting serious bodily harm, sexual abuse of child….…bribery (§ 332)….,
and fails to report it without unnecessary delay to the Police or Prosecutor Office may be imprisoned up to 3 years.“.
The Government, Ministry of Justice, is aware of this disproportion between duty to report crime and no subsequent protection and since it seeks to introduce harder measures on corruption, it recently submitted a legislative proposal aiming at enhancing motivation of those who hesitate to report crime of bribery (see below in Pending legislation).
2. Secondly, there is certain degree of protection of employees under the Labour Code, No. 262/2006 Coll, as amended, together with the Act on Non Discrimination No. 198/2009 Coll., as amended. The problem with protection under this code is that it is neither precise nor effective and, most importantly, it is hardly enforceable. In the opening chapter, the Labour Code pronounces the prohibition of certain behaviour towards employees (among which is also prohibition of discrimination) as follows:
For the purpose of this Act the governing principles are as follows
a)…d)
e) equal treatment of employees and prohibition of their discrimination.“.
This provision is supplemented by reference to another law, Act on Non Discrimination No. 198/2009 Coll., as amended, elaborating terms like direct/indirect discrimination etc. However, among prohibited behaviour, which is regarded as discriminating, is not persecution of those who, in good faith, reported acts in breach of commonly accepted societal values. As a result, enforcement mechanisms available under this law in form of legal action seeking judicial restraint and compensation are non-applicable.
3. Thirdly, there is the Ombudsman Act No. 349/1999 Coll., as amended. This law enables everyone to turn to Ombudsman Office with a complaint under specified circumstances. The Ombudsman is entitled to investigate the case, search premises and in the end he delivers decision of recommendatory nature.4) If the relevant institution does not accept any recommended action or remains silent, the Ombudsman is entitled to notify a supervisory institution or government:
(2) if the institution in question has not taken any action recommended by the ombudsman, the latter is entitled to notify
a) supervising authority or if any, a government,
b) public.“.
It means that there exists the information channel for employees to report misconduct at their workplace but, again, there is no protection against retaliatory acts. And recommendatory nature of decisions of the Ombudsman Office is also controversial from the point of view of employees because it still leaves them exposed to vexation that often leads to termination of their employment contract. If the employee does not prove that he was subject of discrimination in relation to his whistleblowing actions (and still it is not explicitly protected under Act on Non Discrimination see above) he is usually made redundant under fabricated circumstances which makes the whole act legal in terms of recognised reasons to terminate contract of employment under the Labour Code but wholly unjust. The only legal instrument the employee can use in this situation is to bring a legal action against unlawful termination. These cases are mostly decided not in favour of employees.
4. There have been great hopes attached to adoption of the new Public Service Law in terms of whistleblowing and protection of employees against retaliation in public sector. Until recently, the Czech Republic was the last EU member country without strong legal framework of public administration in terms of status of public employees and their rights.5) This act is about to bring strong hierarchical framework to state administration but, unfortunately, in terms of internal whistleblowing in state institutions and employees rights for protection against retaliatory acts after reporting misconduct at workplace, there is only one provision regulating the right of employees to submit a complaint.6)
The provision is not very elaborated and repeats rights of employees from other laws, providing that:
(1) Public employee may submit written complaint to his employer in relation to all matters arising out of his official matters.
(2) The complaint is dealt with by direct superior of the claimant or by the supervising public authority, unless stated otherwise.
(3) The complaint must not be dealt with by a person or public authority which is an object of the complaint.
(5) The complaint must be concluded within 30 days after its submission.
The Public Service Law was passed by both chambers of the Czech Parliament in October 2014 and was subject to veto of the president of the Czech Republic M. Zeman due to controversies about the status of institution authorised to govern the public service.7) In November, the House of Deputies outvoted the veto and the law is expected to come into effect in January 2015. As a response to outvoting, president Zeman filed complaint with the Constitutional Court over the Civil Service Law on 7th November and proposed its nullification.8), 9)
1. There have been several attempts recently to enact a law that would provide certain degree of legal protection for whistleblowers. First was the governmental proposal in 2013 based on the amendment of the Act on Non Discrimination (see above). The amendment would define the term „whistleblower“ as a person who reported a crime at his workplace and would also define any retaliatory act against such a person as discriminatory. As a consequence, it would give rise to the right of whistleblower to seek judicial restraint and claim compensation. As a protective measure for whistleblowers it suggested turning of burden of proof from claimant to defendant in civil procedure which would follow the termination of contract of employment provided that the former employee initiated judicial proceedings.10) This proposal did not make it to the parliamentary scrutiny due to the downfall of the right-wing government in 2013.
2. The second legislative proposal came from a Member of Senat, former high-ranking public employee who had his personal experience with whistleblowing (Libor Michálek). This proposal was more elaborate and defined „whistleblower“ as a person who reported misconduct not consistent with a public concern. The primary protection of whistleblowers would be prohibition of termination of employment contract for a specified period of time. This proposal was met with hostile reaction among senators and was quickly dismissed.11)
3. The third legislative proposal came from the Ministry of Interior and was just partial attempt to provide motivation and subsequent exemption from prosecution for one side of corrupt behaviour. It seeks to privilege passive side in cases of bribery, i.e. the person asked to give a bribe. If this person reports the fact that he was asked to give a bribe without unnecessary delay, the Prosecutor Office will use its discretion and may decide not to prosecute him. This proposal is now on its way to the Parliament.
As pointed out earlier there is no comprehensive law on whistleblowing in the Czech Republic. Therefore, courts do not acknowledge the rights of whistleblowers. The only way how „whistleblowing issues“ might arrive before the courts and be subject to judicial proceedings is legal defence of former employee who had been made redundant as a result of his whistleblowing. This defence takes the form of a legal action for unlawful termination of contract of employment. In practice, it is not recognised as „whistleblowing case“. The reason is that when employers seek to get rid of an employee who blew the whistle on misconduct they usually fabricate circumstances of the case to make them distorted and far from original scenario, evidence of which is supplied by other employees who were promised to be promoted or financially motivated. Consequently, this approach enables employers to apply one of the recognised reasons for termination of contract of employment under Labour Code, in most cases provision of § 52 sub. c), which regulates so called „organisational reasons“. In the end the case is not regarded as „whistleblowing case“, but just termination of employment contract for redundancy.
The absence of legal regulation of whistleblowing in the Czech Republic might be overcome at judicial level by application of decisions of European Court of Human Rights, especially the leading „whistleblowing case“ Heinisch v. Germany.12) Unfortunately, this has not happened yet.
Public perception of whistleblowing is mostly negative. Perhaps it is given by the recent historical experience when state institutions were regarded just as effective cogs in the sinister totalitarian machine. They are still not perceived like institutions which are paid from public resources and designed to serve the public. Therefore, there is rather weak link between ordinary citizens and institutions and this absence of identification and trust in state institutions leads to lack of interest in improving public affairs and willingness to prevent abuse of public resources by politicians and others.13) Whistleblowers are not perceived as those who want to improve things. Snitches or even weirdos, that is the most common name heard in relation to whistleblowing.
Although there is no legislation regulating whistleblowing in private sector, larger Czech companies and very often subsidiaries of EU or US based corporations have their compliance policies which usually contain internal measures governing whistleblowing in various forms, e.g. hotlines, secured applications on Intranets or appointment of authorised person, usually working in Internal Audit to deal with reports on misconduct.14)
Legal protection of journalistic sources can be found in two Czech laws. First of all, it is § 16 of the Press Law No. 46/2000 Coll., as amended:
Natural person or legal entity which participated in obtaining and processing information for its publication in the press is entitled to deny disclosure of information about source or content of these information to judicial body or other similar public institution.”.
Secondly, similar provision is in § 41 of the Broadcasting Act No. 231/2001 Coll., as amended:
Natural person or legal entity which participated in obtaining and processing information for radio or television publication is entitled to deny disclosure of information about source or content of these information to judicial body or other similar public institution.”.
As can be seen, the legislator was inspired by the wording from the Press Law and drafted this provision with slight difference in means of publication. What is obvious though, is the lack of similar legal regulation in relation to new media e.g. web pages, social networks etc. There is no higher standard of legal protection for journalists, publishers, media, NGOs etc. They are all on equal footing with the rest of society, no matter if they deal with sensitive issues like cases of fraud or corruption among high-ranking white collars or ordinary matters. What is important to mention in this connection is that, again, even journalists have the duty to report a crime according to § 368 of the Criminal Code (see above). In accordance with the interpretation of these conflicting provisions of Criminal Code and Press Law by the Czech Constitutional Court, the disclosure of the source of information can be requested by the state authorities only in cases of the most serious crimes like terrorism, organised crime etc. There was the decision of the Constitutional Court in 2004 when a journalist refused to disclose source of information and was fined by 40 000,-Kc (cca 1500€) by the Police. When the issue arrived before the Constitutional Court the court held: “it is important to consider very carefully, case by case, if in given circumstances, the public concern to disclose source of information outweighs constitutional right of freedom of speech.”. Based on this test, the court rejected the Police request to disclose source of information in this case and annulled the fine. 15)
1.See web sites of the Supreme Public Prosecutor Office at http://www.nsz.cz/index.php/en/public-information.
2. Protection of Witness and Other Persons in Criminal Proceedings Act No. 137/2001 Coll., as amended (available only in Czech) at http://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2001-137 and also web sites of NGO „White Circle of Safety“ providing help for victims of crime at http://www.bkb.cz/en/.
3. E.g. „Poznámky k oznamování trestné činnosti státními orgány, právnickými a fyzickými osobami“, Trestněprávní revue, 2013, č. 7–8, s. 161 (available only in czech).
4. For more information see www.czech.cz/en/Life-Work/How-things-work-here/Law/Ombudsman-–-Public-Defender-of-Rights.
5. Text of the Public Service Law (only in czech, click on the link elektronické podobě): www.mvcr.cz/clanek/zakon-o-statni-sluzbe.aspx.
6. NGOs criticised the changes made under political pressure during the legislative proces, e.g. at /www.czech.cz/en/News/NGO-civil-service-watered-down-by-political-compr.
7. http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/zpravy/czech-senate-approves-civil-service-bill-zeman-may-veto-it/1129566.
8. www.radio.cz/en/section/news/president-zeman-files-complaint-with-constitutional-court-over-civil-service-bill.
9. www.parlamentnilisty.cz/arena/monitor/Sluzebnim-zakonem-se-na-Ustavnim-soudu-bude-zabyvat-soudkyne-Milada-Tomkova-345237 (available only in czech).
10) www.korupce.cz/cz/whistleblowing-a-ochrana-oznamovatelu-102937/ and www.parlamentnilisty.cz/arena/monitor/Pripravovany-zakon-na-ochranu-whistlebloweru-je-k-nicemu-soudi-Michalek-254517 (both available only in czech).
11) http://zpravy.idnes.cz/whistlebloweri-vetsi-ochranu-zatim-nedostanou-f5m-/domaci.aspx?c=A130822_184840_domaci_jj (available only in czech).
12) Text of the decision: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-105777#{"itemid":["001-105777"]}.
13) E.g. as Jan Cienski noted in November 2011 in the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f0b15fa2-1374-11e1-81dd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3IfSU3197.
14. E.g. Bosch subsidiary in the Czech Republic have the following internal channel at :
http://www.bosch.cz/en/cz/our_company_7/compliance_7/reporting_a_compliance_case_7/reporting-a-compliance-case-lp.html
15. Nález Ústavního soudu I. ÚS 394/04 ze dne 27.9. 2006, (available only in czech) at http://kraken.slv.cz/I.US394/04.