Source: http://www.ethic-intelligence.com/experts/22262-new-law-whistleblowing-italy/
Timestamp: 2018-02-25 19:08:43
Document Index: 339500600

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 54', 'Art. 1', 'Art 54', 'Art. 2']

New Law on Whistleblowing in Italy - www.ethic-intelligence.com
HOME > EXPERTS > New Law on Whistleblowing in Italy
Some countries, including Italy, have already implemented laws to protect whistleblowers, however whistleblowing is far from being used as a real instrument to detect crimes. The OECD Foreign Bribery Report (2014) describes how very low the percentage is – only close to 2 % of the concluded foreign bribery cases were detected through whistleblowing[2].
Moreover, a culture of trust needs to be established and promoted to strengthen the perception of the importance of whistleblowing in the public interest. Studies on whistleblowing highlight that whistleblowers typically believe that their reports “will not make a difference” and that “nothing would be done to correct the activity”[3].
The Law expands and clarifies the scope of the existing provisions in the public sector, now applying it to “public administration employee”, “public-economic entity employee”, “private-law entity subject to public control”, as well as “to workers and contractors of undertakings providing goods and services and performing works in favor of public administration”[4].
The Law provides that “the public employee who, in the interest of the public administration’s integrity, reports to the Anti-Bribery and Transparency Officer, to the National Anti-Corruption Authority (“ANAC”)[5], to judicial or accounting authorities wrongdoings he became aware of by reason of employment, shall not be sanctioned, demoted, fired, transferred or subject to other organizational measures having negative effects, direct or indirect, on work conditions due to the report”[6].
The Law, in addition to confirming what was already established by the previous legislation, namely that the whistleblower’s identity must not be revealed, provides for a prohibition of retaliatory and discriminatory measures against the reporter as well as the reversal of the burden of proof, and introduces administrative pecuniary sanctions in connection with a violation of the provisions to protect whistleblowers (including when discriminatory measures are adopted against the whistleblower or when there is a lack of procedures for forwarding, managing reports or adoption of procedures inconsistent with the law)[7].
For the first time, the Law provides rules generally applicable to the private sector, requiring a mandatory reporting system for the protection of whistleblowers to be inserted within the organizational model pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 on the criminal liability of corporations (“Decree 231”)[8].
In detail, the Law requires compliance programs that companies have had to adopt under Decree 231 to provide for one or more channels which allow employees to report in detail, “for the protection of the entity’s integrity”, “relevant wrongdoings”, under Decree 231, and “based on precise and consistent evidence,” or “violations of compliance programs they became aware of by reason of employment”[9].
The Law details measures to protect the whistleblower, which include measures (i) to ensure the confidentiality of the reporter’s identity, (ii) to provide for at least “an alternative channel” for whistleblowing (iii) disciplinary sanctions against “anyone who violates measures in place to protect whistleblowers”, as well as against “anyone who performs, with intent or gross negligence, groundless reports”, (iv) the prohibition of retaliatory or discriminatory acts against the whistleblower for reasons, directly or indirectly, connected to the report[10].
Furthermore, the secrecy regime has been amended accordingly, in order to create consistency throughout the overall legal framework, providing for limited exceptions in which rules on secrets may be waived in favor of the reporting of wrongdoings[11].
[2] OECD Foreign Bribery Report
[3] Recommendation CM/Rec (2014) of the Council of Europe mentioned above, page 36.
[4] Art. 1, paragraph 2.
[5] ANAC is the Italian Authority with supervisory, investigative and disciplinary powers mainly in the field of contracts with the Public Administration; it can impose administrative or monetary sanctions as well as precautionary measures (e.g. the exclusion from bidding procedures).
[6] Art. 1, Art. 54-bis, paragraph 1.
[7] Art. 1, Art 54-bis, paragraph 6.
[8] Decree 231 contemplates a discipline for corporate liability. It provides that a corporation shall be considered liable when individuals (i) who hold representative, administrative or executive positions in the company or actually operate and control it (the top management of the company), or (ii) who are subordinate to, or under the supervision of, one of the aforementioned persons (corporation’s employees) commit, for the benefit of the company, certain crimes listed in Decree 231, which includes national and international corruption. Decree 231 exonerates the company from liability if it can demonstrate that, before the crime was committed, it had adopted and effectively implemented an adequate “organizational model” suitable to prevent the offenses of the kind that occurred and had appointed a supervisory body specifically vested with autonomy of initiative and control powers to supervise the implementation of the organizational model.
[10] Art. 2.
Bruno Cova, Partner Paul Hastings LLP
Francesca Petronio, Partner, Paul Hastings LLP
Marilena Hyeraci, Associate Paul Hastings LLP
Bruno Cova is a Partner in the Corporate Department of Paul Hastings and he chairs the Milan office.
Francesca Petronio is a Partner with Paul Hastings in the Litigation Department of the Milan office.
Marilena Hyeraci is an associate in the Litigation Department of Paul Hastings in Milan.
Jan Stappers, Legal Counsel WhistleB, Whistleblowing Centre AB. says:
20 February 2018 at 16 h 17 min
Thank you for this well written article. You identified some aspects of whistleblowing systems that are easily overlooked: a whistleblowing system should not simply be purchased because the law instructs so, but should also be incorporated in the company policy and endorsed by all levels of management. Also, the whistleblowing system should be easy to use, instead of being an additional compliance burden. From a legal point of view, as you state correctly in your article, the new Whistleblowing Law in Italy does not resolve the potential issues arising from the processing of the whistleblower’s personal data or that of the offender, in connection with the Data Privacy Code and in light of the General Data Protection Regulation. A good whistleblowing system should be designed according to data protection laws, making easy to remain compliant with applicable laws.