Whistleblowing

In principle, the whistleblowers do not have to be direct witnesses to a violation. However, they must have obtained information about violations in connection with or before their professional activities. Violation information is defined as a reasonable suspicion or knowledge of actual or potential breaches and attempts to conceal such breaches that have occurred or are very likely to occur (section 3 (3) HinSchG). However, only whistleblowers acting in good faith are protected from any discriminatory measures as a result of their report.

When reporting to the Others or the administrative organs of the authority, the whistleblower must have reasonable grounds to believe that a reportable fact has occurred, or is about to occur. This is called “truth equivalence”, and it is necessary that it is not just speculation or hearsay, but has considerable grounds, such as evidence supporting the reportable fact and highly credible statements by the people concerned[1]. However, if reporting to administrative organs with the authority and the reportable fact is considered to have occurred or is about to occur and a document with (i) the whistleblower’s name and address, (ii) the reportable fact, (iii) reasonable grounds to believe that the reportable fact is considered to have occurred, or is about to occur and (iv) reasons to believe that measures based on laws and regulations or other appropriate measures is considered to be needed to be taken with respect to the reportable fact are submitted, truth equivalence is not required.

If reporting to the Recipient of Services etc., truth equivalence is not necessarily required, and in such cases the whistleblower must satisfy the prescribed requirements such as that the reportable fact is considered to have occurred or is about to occur.

For further information, please see question 22.