GRAND CHAMBER
CASE OF HALET v. LUXEMBOURG
(Application no. 21884/18)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Criminal-law fine of EUR 1,000 for disclosure to media of confidential documents from private-sector employer concerning tax practices of multinational companies (LuxLeaks) • Consolidation of European Court’s previous case-law on protection of whistle-blowers and fine-tuning of criteria established in Guja v. Moldova [GC] • No abstract and general definition of concept of whistle-blower • Claim for protection under whistle-blower status to be granted depending on circumstances and context of each case • Overall assessment by the Court of Guja criteria, taken separately, but without hierarchy or specific order • Channel selected for disclosure acceptable in absence of illegal conduct by employer • Authenticity of disclosed documents • Applicant’s good faith • Necessary balancing of competing interests at stake by Grand Chamber, as domestic courts’ balancing exercise did not satisfy requirements identified in present judgment • Overly restrictive interpretation of public interest of disclosed information, which had made essential contribution to pre-existing debate of national and European importance • Detriment sustained by employer alone taken into account by domestic courts • Public interest in disclosure outweighed all detrimental effects, including theft of data, breach of professional secrecy and harm to private interests of employer’s customers • Disproportionate nature of criminal conviction
 
STRASBOURG
14 February 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The factual background to the case
B. The criminal proceedings brought in the case
1. The first-instance judgment
2. The proceedings before the Court of Appeal
(a) The submissions of the Attorney General’s Department
(b) The Court of Appeal’s judgment
3. The Court of Cassation’s judgments in respect of A.D. and the applicant, and the further proceedings in respect of A.D. (a) The Court of Cassation’s judgment in respect of the 
applicant
(b) The Court of Cassation’s judgment in respect of A.D. (c) The Court of Appeal’s remittal judgment with regard 
to A.D. II. RELEVANT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Relevant domestic law
B. International and European law
1. International materials
2. Texts adopted by the Council of Europe
3. The European Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of European Union law
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The Chamber judgment
B. The parties’ submissions
1. The applicant’s submissions
2. The Government’s submissions
C. Third-party submissions
1. Maison des Lanceurs d’alerte (MLA)
2. Media Defence
3. Whistleblower Netzwerk E.V. (WBN)
D. The Court’s assessment
1. General principles established in the Court’s case-law
(a) General principles concerning the right to freedom of expression within professional relationships
(b) The Guja criteria and the procedure for applying them
(i) The channels used to make the disclosure
(ii) The authenticity of the disclosed information
(iii) Good faith
(iv) The public interest in the disclosed information
(v) The detriment caused
(vi) The severity of the sanction
2. Application of these principles in the present case
(a) Preliminary considerations
(b) The Court of Appeal’s assessment of the facts
(i) The subsidiary review carried out by the Court
(ii) The Court of Appeal’s acknowledgment of the direct effect of the Convention
(iii) The Court of Appeal’s implementation of the Guja 
criteria
(α) Whether other channels existed to make the 
disclosure
(β) The authenticity of the disclosed information
(γ) The applicant’s good faith
(δ) The balancing of the public interest in the disclosed information and the detrimental effects of the disclosure
‒ The context of the disclosure in issue.....................
‒ The public interest of the disclosed information........
‒ The detrimental effects........................................
‒ The outcome of the balancing exercise.................... (ε) The severity of the sanction
(c) Conclusion

Outcome for Article 10: violation