Analyse
14 juillet 2021

Quel sera l’impact de la transposition en droit français de la directive européenne sur la protection des lanceurs d’alerte ? (en anglais)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy updates

 

The transposition of the European Union (“EU”) Directive dated 23 October 2019 on the protection of whistleblowers into the laws of the member States must take place on 17 December 2021, thus impacting all companies comprised of more than 50 employees[i]. However, such transposition should not imply a major change in French law, which is already quite protective of whistleblowers. Some clarifications and reinforcements are nevertheless expected.

The European Directive is similar to the so-called “Sapin II Law”[ii] in some respects, notably with regards to the obligation to prohibit retaliation measures against the whistleblower[iii], which is codified in several areas of French law (Criminal Code, Labour Code, Monetary and Financial Code), and the statement of an immunity of whistleblowers’ from liability in the context of proceedings brought against them following an alert, for example in cases of business secrets’ disclosure, copyright infringement or defamation[iv].

It remains that the Directive clarifies and strengthens the scope of protection.

Firstly, the Sapin II law provides for the protection of whistleblowers for all breaches of probity[v]. The Directive specifies the scope of protection by listing the breaches, the report for which whistleblower will be protected, including those breaches affecting the financial interests of the EU, breaches relating to the internal market, or breaches falling within the scope of Union acts concerning various areas (public procurement, financial services, food and feed or transport safety, protection of the environment, public health, protection of privacy, and others)[vi].

It should be specified that mere suspicions, if reasonable, of potential breaches or attempts to conceal breaches, are sufficient to justify the protection of whistleblowers[vii].

Secondly, the European text extends the protection of whistleblowers to all “workers”, and not just the employees. This notion of “workers” includes civil servants, self-employed workers, but also shareholders and persons belonging of the administrative, management or supervisory body of an undertaking, including non-executive members, volunteers and paid or unpaid trainees, as well as any persons working under the supervision and direction of contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. This is the case even where information on reported breaches was acquired in an employment relationship which has since ended or in a work-based relationship which has yet to begin (ongoing recruitment process or pre-contractual negotiations) [viii].

Protection is also extended to facilitators, third persons connected with the whistleblowers and who could suffer retaliation in a employment context (whistleblowers’ colleagues or relatives), but also to legal entities owned by whistleblowers, work for or are, in any other way, connected with in a work-related context[ix].

In addition, both the Sapin II Law and the Directive require private and public sector entities to establish internal reporting and follow-up channels and procedures for[x], which guarantee the confidentiality of the identity of the whistleblowers and persons referred to in the report, as wells as the information contained in the report[xi].

As for the private sector, these procedures are only required for legal entities with 50 or more employees[xii], although entities with 50 to 249 employees may choose to share resources for the receipt of alerts and the necessary investigations[xiii].

The Directive further strengthens the protection in this regard by allowing Member States to require private law entities with fewer than 50 employees, to implement internal channels following a risk assessment based on the nature of their activities and the level of risk to the environment and public health[xiv].

As for the public sector, unlike French legislation which only obliges municipalities with more than 10,000 inhabitants, all entities are subject to the implementation of whistleblowing systems, though member states remain free to exempt municipalities or entities with fewer than 50 employees from this obligation[xv].

Finally, French law provides that the reporting of an alert must follow a three-step process. It must first be relayed to the supervisor or the employer, and then, only in the event of a lack of diligence from the latter, to the judicial or administrative authority or to professional orders. As a last resort, it may be made public[xvi]. It may be directly brought to the attention of external bodies or the public, only in the event of serious and imminent danger[xvii].

In most cases, a whistleblower will feel more comfortable internally reporting behaviour in order for risks to be resolved potentially faster and in a more effective way, although he or she may also fear retaliation[xviii].

The European Directive therefore offers greater freedom of choice to the whistleblower, considering that the latter should be able to choose the most appropriate course of action considering the particular situation he or she is confronted to[xix].

The transposition of this Directive into French law should therefore open interesting avenues for greater whistleblower protection. In this respect, the conclusions published in June 2021 of a public consultation launched by the French Ministry of Justice show that most participants are in favor of whistleblowers receiving financial support (73.4%) and psychological assistance (78%)[xx]. The details of this greater protection should be known in the next few months.

Contenu similaire

Actualités
16 septembre 2021
La Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) sur la voie de la simplification (en anglais)
Le 4 août 2021, un nouveau décret a été promulgué visant à simplifier les formalités requises pour la conclusion de la CJIP (Convention judiciaire d’in...
Louis Beltaire
Elève avocat
Alexandre Desevedavy
Elève avocat
Julie Zorrilla
Associée Navacelle
Salomé Garnier
Collaboratrice Navacelle
Publication
3 septembre 2021
Le Parlement européen pose les jalons d’une obligation de vigilance pour les entreprises (en anglais)
Julie Zorrilla, Thomas Lapierre et Stéphane de Navacelle mettent en lumière les recommandations aux entreprises que les députés européens ont adoptées le ...
Stéphane de Navacelle
Associé gérant Navacelle
Julie Zorrilla
Associée Navacelle
Thomas Lapierre
Collaborateur Navacelle
Publication
20 août 2021
It’s not an “ego fight”: The do’s and don’ts of monitorships
Des experts à travers le monde partagent sur les éléments clés afin d'assurer le succès d'un monitorat de programme de conformité. "La qualité des relati...
Adam Dobrik
Journaliste
Julie Zorrilla
Associée Navacelle
Publication
14 juillet 2021
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021
Happy 2021 Bastille Day! Lawyers at Navacelle thought you might be interested in reviewing a selection we made of noticeable events which occurred in France i...
Stéphane de Navacelle
Associé gérant Navacelle
Clémentine Duverne
Associée Navacelle
Julie Zorrilla
Associée Navacelle
Analyse
Quel sera l’impact de la transposition en droit français de la directive européenne sur la protection des lanceu...
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy updates
Analyse
L’affaire Bolloré et les risques que présentent les plaider coupable pour les personnes physiques (en anglais)
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Enforcement & Court Decisions
Analyse
Short overview of the French legal requirement for internal controls relating to the AML-CFT
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy Updates
Analyse
The time limits for consideration of the request for release of a person subject to an extradition request were not ext...
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Enforcement & Court Decisions
Analyse
Criminal liability’s transfer to the acquiring company in the event of a merger by acquisition and consecutive due dil...
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Enforcement & Court Decisions
Analyse
Preserving the primacy of due process and fair trial rights in the special context of the Coronavirus pandemic
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Enforcement & Court Decisions