Whistleblowing
Contributing Editors
In this new age of accountability, organisations around the globe are having to navigate a patchwork of new laws designed to protect those who expose corporate misconduct. IEL’s Guide to Whistleblowing examines what constitutes a protective disclosure, the scope of regulations across 24 countries, and the steps businesses must take to ensure compliance with them.
Learn more about the response taken in specific countries or build your own report to compare approaches taken around the world.
Choose countries
Choose questions
Choose the questions you would like answering, or choose all for the full picture.
23. What is the scope of the protection?
23. What is the scope of the protection?
Flag / Icon
Germany
Germany
- at Oppenhoff
- at Oppenhoff
The most fundamental part of the protection is the prohibition of retaliation against the whistleblower. Therefore, the reporting or disclosing of information may not result in unjustified disadvantages such as disciplinary measures, dismissal or other discrimination against the person providing the information. In Addition, the Whistleblower Protection Act still contains a reversal of the burden of proof if the whistleblower suffers a disadvantage in connection with their professional activities. However, it is presumed that the disadvantage is a reprisal for the tip-off only if the whistleblower also asserts this themself. It should be noted, however, that the reversal of the burden of proof in favour of the whistleblower will only apply in labour court disputes and not in fining proceedings.
Furthermore, the Whistleblower Protection Act contains an exclusion of responsibility. Thus, a whistleblower cannot be made legally responsible for obtaining or accessing information that he or she has reported or disclosed, unless the obtaining or accessing of the information and the procurement or access as such constitutes an independent criminal offence (section 35 (1) HinSchG). In addition, a whistleblower does not violate any disclosure restrictions and may not be held legally responsible for the disclosure of information made in a report or disclosure if he or she had reasonable cause to believe that the disclosure of the information was necessary to detect a violation.
Download your results as a PDF
Download as pdf link
Contributors
Australia
Pinsent Masons
Austria
GERLACH
Belgium
Van Olmen & Wynant
Brazil
CGM
Croatia
Babic & Partners
Denmark
IUNO
France
Proskauer
Germany
Oppenhoff
India
Khaitan & Co
Ireland
Arthur Cox
Italy
Zambelli & Partners
Japan
City-Yuwa
Latvia
Ellex Klavins
Lithuania
Ellex Valiunas
Luxembourg
Castegnaro
Malta
Camilleri Preziosi
Nigeria
Bloomfield LP
Poland
Baran Książek Bigaj
Portugal
Cuatrecasas
Romania
STALFORT Legal. Tax. Audit.
Singapore
Braddell Brothers LLP
Spain
Cuatrecasas
Sweden
Lindahl
United Kingdom
Proskauer
United States
Proskauer
Contributors
Germany
Oppenhoff