Analyse
14 juillet 2019

Une brève comparaison et contraste entre les mécanismes d’alerte européens et français et la directive européenne (En anglais)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2019 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy Updates

France established protective legislation for whistleblowers similar to nine other European countries [1]. Whistleblower protection in France was reinforced in December 2016 with the enactment of the Sapin II Law.

The Sapin II law defines the whistleblower, establishes channels by which information is to be reported and introduces measures to ensure whistleblower protection {2].

Recent cases – Panama Papers, Luxleaks, Dieselgate or Cambridge Analytica – demonstrate the need to define and protect whistleblowers non only at a national level, but also at a European level.

On March 14, 2019, a new whistleblower directive on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of European Union law was approved in Strasbourg [3]. EU Member States will have two years after the finalization of this text to implement the rules into each country’s legal system.

I. The definition of a whistleblower

French law defines a whistleblower as “a physical person who reports, selflessly and in good faith, a crime or an offence, a serious and obvious breach of an international commitment duly ratified or approved by France, of a unilateral act from an international organization issued on the basis of such commitment, of law or regulation, or a serious threat or harm to the public interest, of which he has personal knowledge”[4]. Moreover, the reporting mechanism set out by Article 8 of Sapin II provides that whistleblowers can only report on facts related to their employer or the entity for which they work for.

The European Directive applies to reporting persons working in the private or public sector who have acquired information on breaches in a current, former or future work-related context[5].

The European understanding of the whistleblower is wider than that of France however, in that the European Directive includes shareholders, former employees, employees of subcontractors, suppliers, colleagues and parents of the whistleblower.

Furthermore, European law does not impose the pre-requisites on whistleblowers that they have personal knowledge or report selflessly.

II. The reporting mechanisms

Drawing from the recommendations of the French Administrative High Court, Conseil d’État [6]. Sapin II sets out a three-step procedure [7]:

  • – Internal reporting channel: the whistleblower must bring the facts “to the knowledge of his direct or indirect superior, his employer or somebody” (a type of Whistleblowing Officer) “designated by his employer to that effect” [8].
  • – Communication to the competent authorities: “[i]n the event that the person who received the reported information fails to diligently […]verify the admissibility of said report within a reasonable time”, its issuer may address the judicial authority, the administrative authority or the professional bodies [9].
  • – Disclosure to the public: “[a]s a last resort, [if the authority referred to] fails to address the issue within three months, the reported information may be made public [10], e.g. communicated to the media, associations, NGO, or unions.

Derogation from the application of this procedure is possible in the event of serious and imminent danger or if there is a risk of irreversible damage. In both cases, the whistleblower can address the competent authorities or make his/her report public directly [11]. Sapin II also enables whistleblowers to address their report to the Défenseur des droits, the French Rights Defender [12], in order to be directed to the appropriate authority [13].

In a similar way, the European Directive allows for various reporting mechanisms – internal, external and in case of imminent danger. Mirroring the French provisions, the European Directive provides that in cases where no appropriate action was taken in response to the whistleblower’s initial report, or if the whistleblower believes that there is an imminent danger to the public interest or a risk of retaliation, he/her will still be protected if he/her chooses to disclose the information publicly.

Adversely to French law however, with the purpose of ensuring whistleblower protection and confidentiality of the information, the European provisions allow the whistleblowers to choose between disclosing the information internally to the legal entity concerned or externally, to the competent national authorities, or to the relevant EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. This alternative had also been put to debate in the French National Assembly but was rejected by the Senate.

III.  The protection of the whistleblower

French law protects whistleblowers during the entire process, by preserving the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity, the identity of the person concerned by the report, and the information received within the report.

Revealing information that could lead to the identification of a whistleblower is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a criminal fine of up to 30,000 euros. A legal authority may face a criminal fine of up to five times this amount, i.e. 150,000 euros [14].

Moreover, the whistleblower benefits from disciplinary immunity. The whistleblower is therefore protected against any disciplinary measure or sanction, discrimination or unfavorable measure.

European law goes even further to ensure protection of whistleblowers. Additionally, to protecting the whistleblower from retaliation, civil, criminal, administrative or employment related liability, the Directive prohibits any form of direct or indirect retaliation, including threats and attempted threats and lists many detrimental measures. The Member States have also committed to supporting the whistleblower by providing free independent advice on the remedies available for protection against retaliation, effective assistance of authorities and access to legal aid.

In light of these differences between the French and European provisions on the whistleblower mechanism, it remains to be seen how the French legislator adapts to the widened scope of the whistleblower status and reinforced protection of the whistleblower.

Contenu similaire

Publication
Livre blanc - L'enquête interne en matière sociale
15 juillet 2022
Livre blanc Enquête interne en matière sociale
L’appréhension par la matière sociale de l’enquête interne. Dans le contexte du développement de la pratique de l’enquête interne ces dernières années en Fra...
Analyse
Lobbying les obligations déclaratives des représentants d’intérêts en France
14 juillet 2022
Lobbying : Les obligations déclaratives des représentants d’intérêts en France
Mise en lumière des obligations déclaratives imposées aux représentants d’intérêts en France, prévues par la loi n° 2013-907 du 11 octobre 2013 modifiée par la...
Actualité
ABA
6 décembre 2022
Lancement du guide international des enquêtes internes en entreprise
NAVACELLE co-organise le lancement du guide ABA à Dubaï aux côtés de Al Tamimi & Company, Bär & Karrer et Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.
Revue de presse
Week of 28 November 2022
2 décembre 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 28 novembre 2022
Cette semaine vous découvrirez plusieurs évènements judiciaires importants : la Cour de cassation a apporté des précisions sur la qualité de victime d’un acte de ...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse - Semaine du 21 novembre 2022
25 novembre 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 21 novembre 2022
Cette semaine vous découvrirez l’ouverture d’une enquête préliminaire du parquet national financier pour détournement de fonds publics. Par ailleurs, vous trouver...
Événement
Ifaci demain en main - vignette
24 novembre 2022
Table ronde – Allégations & Enquêtes
Stéphane de Navacelle participera à la conférence annuelle de l'IFACI " Demain en mains " sur le thème Allégations - Enquêtes, lundi 28 novembre 2022.
Analyse
23 novembre 2022
La CJUE limite la conservation généralisée des données en matière de surveillance
Le 20 septembre 2022, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a rendu deux arrêts concernant les conditions dans lesquelles les Etats membres sont autorisés à cons...
Analyse
21 novembre 2022
CJIP Crédit Suisse pour blanchiment aggravé de fraude fiscale et démarchage illicite
Le Crédit Suisse échappe aux poursuites judiciaires et accepte le paiement d’une amende d’intérêt public de 123 000 000 d’euros dans le cadre de la 13ème CJIP ...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse - Semaine du 14 novembre 2022
18 novembre 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 14 novembre 2022
Cette semaine vous découvrirez trois évènements marquants : la première condamnation en France d’un ancien chef rebelle libérien par la cour d’assises de Paris, ...
Analyse
Autorité de la concurrence - Google
18 novembre 2022
Les récentes sanctions de Google par l’Autorité de la concurrence : serveurs publicitaires et droits voisins
En 2021, l’Autorité de la concurrence a infligé plusieurs amendes à Google pour s’être livré à des pratiques anticoncurrentielles liées d’une part à la rém...
Événement
17 novembre 2022
Identification des acteurs contractuels de la Compliance
Julie Zorrilla est intervenu à la Colloque "Contrat et compliance : les acteurs et leurs stratégies" à l'Université de Nîmes.
Événement
17 novembre 2022
Cambridge Forum : L’assistance juridique mutuelle s’est dévoyée !
Pourquoi se préoccuper des traités d'entraide judiciaire quand le droit local est mondial et que les procureurs échangent des informations sur WhatsApp ?
Revue de presse
Revue de presse - Semaine du 7 novembre 2022
14 novembre 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 7 novembre 2022
Cette semaine, vous trouverez des précisions apportées par la Cour de cassation sur la légalité d’une extradition d’un ressortissant de l’Union européenne vers...
Événement
9 novembre 2022
Webinaire : Une approche comparative du secret professionnel dans les procédures pénales
Stéphane de Navacelle est intervenu lors du webinaire Mondaq /Monfrini Bitton Klein sur le "secret professionnel et le "attorney-client privilege" dans les procédures p...