Providing an Alternative to Silence:
Towards Greater Protection and Support for
Whistleblowers in the EU
COUNTRY REPORT: LITHUANIA
This report belongs to a series of 27 national reports that assess the adequacy of whistleblower
protection laws of all member states of the European Union.
Whistleblowing in Europe: Legal
Protection for Whistleblowers in the EU, published by Transparency International in November 2013,
compiles the findings from these national reports. It can be accessed a
t www.transparency.org. All national reports are available upon reque
st at xx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.
Responsibility for all information contained in the report lies with the author. Views expressed in the
report are the author’s own, and may not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation for which
they work. Transparency International cannot accept responsibility for any use that may be made of the
information contained therein.
The project has been funded with support from the European Commission. The sole responsibility lies
with the author and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the
information contained therein.
With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Union.
European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs
Providing an Alternative to Silence:
Towards Greater Protection and Support for Whistleblowers in the EU
Country profile Lithuania
“Transparency International” Lithuania
October, 2013
I.
Executive Summary
Currently, there are no laws in Lithuania explicitly covering the issue of whistleblower protection, no
relevant legal terminology and no special guarantees for whistleblowers in the national regulation.
Hence, there is no sufficient whistleblowers (hereinafter WB) protection mechanism in place in the
country. Discussions on legal regulation of WB protection started back in 2005, when the draft law was
registered in the Parliament but stacked there and not yet adopted. From this year on, more vivid public
discussions started on whistleblowers protection. A survey conducted in 2009 showed a growing public
willingness to participate in anti-corruption initiatives and a positive public perception of
whistleblowers, who were reportedly seen as brave and proactive people. Likewise, the Lithuanian Map
of Corruption 2011 reported that majority of respondents took a positive view of whistleblowers.
In 2013, the legislative discussions were renewed in the Parliament. The updated National Anti-
Corruption Programme 2011 - 2014 provides more than 90 preventive measures, although the
Programme does not give strong focus on the whistleblowers protection, only providing for additional
analysis and offering scattered regulations for the public sector.
Although there are positive tendencies increasing the focus on whistleblowers protection both in the
political and social levels, but concrete steps are still necessary to ensure a comprehensive and efficient
protection for whistleblowers. TI Lithuania is continuously engaged in the area of whistleblower
protection.
II.
Compilation, description and assessment of WB protection laws
By ratifying major anti - corruption treaties such as the United Nations Convention against Corruption
and the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption, Lithuania made a commitment to
ensure appropriate whistleblowers protection. However, there is neither a free-standing national law
nor any sector-specific legal provisions on whistleblowers protection existing in Lithuania. The only
legal act explicitly concerning whistleblowing, although from a remunerative perspective, is the
Government Resolution ‘On Remuneration for Valuable Information about Crime which includes
Damage to Property’. Yet, this resolution has significant shortcomings and has not been applied in
practice.
There is a number of laws related to the protection of witnesses and members of national defence and
security departments, as well as laws covering the protection of journalist sources. Under certain
circumstances whistleblowers can fall into these categories. Yet, currently, the rights of potential
whistleblowers are most likely to be protected (and with greatest effectiveness) by regular general law,
i.e. the Labour Code or the Law on Public Service. However, these laws provide only for general
mechanisms to protect employees and do not take into account the special situation of whistleblowers.
As a result, the current legal framework in Lithuania does not offer any specific whistleblower
protection. As long as there is no coherent whistleblower protection framework in place, or at least a
definition of what whistleblowing is, it is unfeasible to offer any kind of compensation for retaliation or
financial losses, or reward for whistleblowing acts. Also, in cases of dismissal from work, there are no
regulations allowing the whistleblowers to enjoy procedural protection in the judicial procedures.
The discussion on legal regulation of WB protection started in 2005 when the draft law was registered
in the Parliament but got stalled there. In 2009, TI Lithuania, in a partnership with law expert Petras
Ragauskas, PhD drafted a new piece of regulation (comprehensive Whistleblower protection law1).
Those documents were presented for input to various institutions, such as Special Investigations
Service (SIS), Prosecution Service, Police Department, State Labour Inspectorate, State Tax
Inspectorate, Financial Crime Investigation Service, and the President. It was from the beginning
agreed that protection is vital and TI Lithuania together with various institutions were looking for the
best whistleblower protection regulatory model. On 30th of September 2010, the group of MPs called
for civic involvement in creating Lithuania without corruption and unexpectedly registered the draft
Whistleblower Protection Law in the Parliament. This draft law, however, was significantly formalized,
narrowed down the reporting channels and the guarantees for whistleblowers.
TI Lithuania indicated the main issues of this draft law, such as:
1. The activities that can be reported are too narrowly defined, i.e. only corrupt activities but no other
offenses can be reported;
2. The list of addressees - people, institutions for reporting of activities - is too narrow. It only includes
pre-trial investigation institutions, thus, excluding employers as well as the State Labour Inspectorate
and the State Tax Inspectorate;
1
http://transparency.lt/media/filer_public/2013/06/20/tils_praneseju_apsaugos_istatymo_projektas_20115.pdf ;
http://transparency.lt/media/filer_public/2013/06/20/tils_pasiulymai_pai_projektui_2010_11_262.pdf ;
3. The application of the whistleblower protection measures does not ensure appropriate protection
over time - from the beginning of the pre-trial investigations towards the end of the criminal
proceedings.
TI Lithuania also made suggestions on how to improve this draft law2 and estimated that such law
would rather discourage the potential whistleblowers than grant any real protection. At the same time,
legislator also suggested several amendments to existing laws. However, the existing laws, as already
mentioned, only cover certain groups of people (like public officials or witnesses in criminal
proceedings) so they would only rectify the situation for limited numbers and would not solve the WB
protection gap.
At the same time, TI Lithuania conducted two surveys on internal and external reporting practices in
public institutions. The surveys revealed that the majority of public institutions surveyed have some
sort of internal reporting and protection mechanisms in place that fall into line with current legislation.
However, protection is mainly limited to general guarantees for all employees as laid down by the
Labour Code, other relevant laws and the technical internal rules and regulations of a particular
institution. Therefore, general effectiveness of internal whistleblowing system seems to be highly
questionable. Furthermore, most respondent institutions noted only few cases of employee reporting.
The previous national anticorruption programme 2008 - 2012 also covered the issue of WB protection
to a limited extent. It provided that there is a need to analyse if existing regulation is sufficient and
effective in protecting the whistleblowers (the suggestion which was repeatedly included in previous
anticorruption programmes), on the other hand, the programme included one concrete regulatory
proposal: to amend the Public Service law in order to ensure confidentiality of those public officials
who report grave breaches of their colleagues.
Upon the approval of the Lithuanian Parliament, the updated National Anti-Corruption Programme was
adopted in 2012. It provides more than 90 anti-corruption and preventive measures although the
Programme does not have strong focus on the whistleblowers protection. The measure related to the
whictleblowers protection intents to “evaluate the national legislation related to the protection of
whistleblowers who report corruption-related offenses, issues of application of such legislative acts and
if necessary - to make concrete proposals on protection regulation”. The main purpose of this measure
was to ensure a more transparent, more open and more efficient work of judiciary and law enforcement
2
http://www.drasuszodis.lt/userfiles/TILS_siulymai_registruoto_ist_projekto_2010_11_22.pdf
institutions as the current national legislation is not sufficient enough. Four institutions were appointed
responsible for the implementation of this measure: the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania
(responsible for the adoption), Ministry of Social Security and Labour (responsible for the preparation),
the Special Investigation Service (hereinafter- SIS) and the Ministry of Justice. The responsibility for
the implementation of the Programme lies with the state and local authorities. Expected results under
this measure were foreseen as a comprehensive analysis and, where appropriate, development and
adoption of new legislation ensuring the whistleblowers protection. Although the preliminary date of
the implementation was set as 2012, the measure was implemented only partly. Amendments of the
Law on Public Service were proposed which were designated to ensure better whistleblowers
protection in this sector. The main issue in this amendment was, as also noted by the SIS, that it intends
to protect only whistleblowers reporting in the public sector and that is only a small part of all the
potential whistleblowers. The National Anti-Corruption Programme 2008 - 2012 intended to enhance
legislation protecting all whistleblowers, including those from the private and public sectors. Thus, the
purpose of this measure would not be fully implemented by only enhancing whistleblowers protection
in the public sector. Also, according to the SIS, there would be a need of preparing amendments of a
number of necessary legal acts in order to adopt the protective measures for all whistleblowers: Labour
Code and other related legislative acts. SIS suggests3 amending the Labour Code (Art.129 para. 3
section 3) as it only prohibits terminating the Labour Contract with the employee on general grounds
and the process of appealing to other administrative institutions but excludes possible situations related
to corruption, thus leaving space for employers abuse. The official SIS position was that the adoption
of such draft legislation would ensure more effective protection of public servants who report about
gross misconduct committed by other public servants.
In June, 20124 SIS evaluated the legislation covering the whistleblowers reporting on corruption-
related crimes, the protection of the corruption related issues and made legislative proposals for the
Inter-agency Commission for Coordination of Fight against Corruption.
In February, 20135 the Ministry of Justice announced that in order to implement the measure of the
whistleblowers protection, the following draft legislation acts have been proposed:
1. Law on the SIS Article 8 (No. 12-4149-01)
2. Law on the Prevention of the Corruption Act Article 5 and Article 11 (1) (No. 12-4154-01)
3
http://www.stt.lt/files/59_priedas_1_5_172351.pdf 4
http://www.stt.lt/files/88_priedas_1_5_100125.pdf 5
http://www.stt.lt/files/89_priedas_1_5_132800.pdf
3. Administrative Procedure Act Articles 60 and 86 (No. 12-4152-01), and
4. Administrative Code Article 276 (No. 12-4150-01).
These draft laws were coordinated with the SIS. Different measures were taken in order to implement
the whistleblowers measure provided in the National Anticorruption Programme. SIS evaluated and
prepared the performance report table about the executed and unexecuted measures. When reporting on
the implementation level of the measure on WB protection, it was noted that the measure is still in the
procedure of the implementation, the SIS also stressed that there is a need to amend particular
legislative acts in order to implement this measure fully.
In 2011, following in the steps of previously conducted survey on hotlines, TI Lithuania identified and
surveyed more than 50 public institutions that operate external public hotlines and helplines. Content
analysis revealed that 59 public institutions (out of 217 analysed) have hotlines or helplines that, among
other functions, are positioned as channels for reporting potential corruption cases inside these
institutions. 105 different types of channels, where one could report, were found: 36 (34 %) telephone
lines, 28 (27%) e-mail boxes particularly for reports, 25 (24%) electronic forms particularly for reports
and 15 (15%) links to the website of Special Investigation Service. Those institutions operating in the
interior (23 posts making techniques), transportation (18) and health care (17) have the highest number
hotlines/ helplines. Institutions operating in education or foreign affairs do not have any hotlines/
helplines. The analysis revealed that organisations operating such external lines and society in general,
do not make distinctions between different types and purposes of such lines. Likewise, no distinction is
made as to who can submit reports, which means complainants can be employees. This makes it harder
to maintain anonymity and confidentiality. There is also no detailed structure for following up on the
reports, which weakens trust in the entire system. Many other general concerns were raised by this
analysis. It was revealed that the institutions do not generally understand the purpose and the need of
hotlines, the purpose of such activity is itself not clear and comprehensive and there is no protection for
the whistleblowers or the content of the report. As a result, such uncertainty threatens to deter from
reporting about potential violations since only quality and secure hotlines encourage active reporting At
the same time, improving hotlines can also contribute to increased trust in the public sector, thus
enabling public officials to better deal with current and prevent future violations.
This study also revealed systematic and structural problems of data protection and information
handling. This study, along with the opinion of the Ombudsmen issued on the same issue (TI Lithuania
coordinated its activities with the Office of the Ombudsmen to have greater impact with this study),
sparked a vivid debate which led to the establishment of a working group by the Ministry of the Interior
in September 2011. The working group featured specialists from all ministries and other agencies that
receive reports on violations and was assigned with the task to develop standard guidelines for
reporting channels and protection for reporting persons (by technical means). The Resolution of the
Government approving the Rules on receiving and handling information on violations was adopted in
October 2012. This Resolution was adopted in order to determine the minimum set of requirements to
provide and manage the information about violations in the state institutions and bodies as well as
ensuring the reporting possibility and enabling public authorities and institutions to prevent these
violations. Before adopting this resolution, TI Lithuania submitted a set of concrete critical proposals,
proposing to specify the name of the resolution as it implies a broader than the actual scope of
regulation, include a provision about the publication of the procedures established by the head of the
organisation, prepare concrete provisions notifying if the reporting person needs to indicate his name,
contacts and how such personal data would be used, etc.
The political debate on this issue is not over. In the end of 2012, the Ministry of Justice reported
conducting an evaluation of existing legal regulations on whistleblowers protection which revealed that
the current legislation is sufficient enough. At the same time, a number of related draft laws have been
prepared with a declared goal to improve the existing system (proposing to amend the Law on Special
Investigation Service, the Law on Corruption Prevention, the Law on Administrative Proceedings, the
Code of Administrative Offences), however, neither of them have been adopted yet. TI Lithuania
criticized this draft legislation as it mainly covers the public sector, therefore the protection of
whistleblowers in the private sector is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the only possible adresee to be
reported to according to this legislation would be the SIS (making the act rather misleading as the
whistleblowers would have a limited choice for reporting in order to be covered by the proposed legal
protection). Finally, these legal acts provide that whistleblowers need to ask for the protection of his or
her personal data and this is the only type of possible protection under this law.
TI Lithuania also noted that the choice to amend these legislative acts for the whistleblowers protection
is rather fragmented in itself, therefore, real positive impact in this case cannot be reached.
The situation in the private sector is even more obscure. The corporate culture of whistleblower
protection appears undeveloped in Lithuania. Few codes of ethics or conduct address whistleblower
protection. Lithuania - based branches of international companies tend to have the best level of
understanding and standards on whistleblowing, often in compliance with rules and expertise
developed by their parent company.
New public discussions about WB protection
In 2013, the discussions on encouraging people to report were renewed in the Parliament. So far, it
partly focused in the Governmental resolution which was passed in 2003 but never applied in practice
since. This resolution foresees remuneration for those who provide institutions with valuable
information on crimes which leads to recovery of damages by the state. Stringent procedure and
accumulative criteria make this regulation impossible to apply in practice, more so, institutions are not
willing to ‘cut the slack’ to whistleblowers (they rather wish to reward their own employees). There is a
suggestion
to
either
amend
this
Resolution
or
to
abolish
it.
TI Lithuania constantly tries to raise the issue of lack of protection of whistleblowers. However, even if
the discourse on people who report violations has changed for the better in recent years (no one would
call whistleblowers snitches, touts of KGB activists in public), there is still reluctance on the side of
institutions to establish an all - encompassing WB protection system. On one hand, it is arguable that
the existing regulation is sufficient, on the other hand, they claim the WB protection systems (like the
one advocated for by TI Lithuania) are too open for abuse. Thus, the question is left unattended for
now.
Recently, there has been a slight increase in the interest in reporting practices from the private sector as
more and more companies are securing compliance with the UK Bribery Act and the USA Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act. Companies that engage in international business are more and more often
encouraged to review their codes of ethics in the light of ensuring maximum efforts in anti-corruption
standards provided by these foreign laws, often resulting in the adoption of some kind of
whistleblowers protection policy. However, since there is no legal definition of a whistleblower in the
first place, these initiatives seem to be rather internal.
New cases
As there are no specific WB regulation in Lithuania as well as accepted terminology to refer to
whistleblowing and whistleblowers, it is very difficult to label any cases as such. Even labour cases (for
example, of unfair dismissal) would be difficult to be analysed from this angle as there is no such legal
ground as unfair dismissal due to reporting against the employer. An interesting and informative
example here is a case related to the dismissal of doctor in the Karoliniškių clinics in 2010. This case
received quite some attention from the media over the last few years. Director Ms E. Kutkauskienė
dismissed Ms A. Kavaliauskaitė from her job three years ago. According to the dismissed doctor, she
was sacked when she tried to use her staff representative’s functions demanding a fair wage
distribution, more rational planning of the work in the clinics and defending illegally dismissed
employees. Ms A. Kavaliauskaitė was an active leader of worker’s professional union; therefore, she
was defended by several medical organizations. At that time, the Vilnius City Second District Court
ordered the employer to return Ms A. Kavaliauskaitė to her former workplace and pay her a
compensation for the forced absence. The clinics appealed, but to no avail: Vilnius Regional Court
confirmed the dismissal to have been illegal. However, she did not come back to work as it was stated
that it is impossible to return due to unfavourable work conditions. After appeals in the Supreme Court,
the final decision concluded that Ms A. Kavaliauskaitė indeed should be allowed to return to work and
severance pay needs to be paid along with the compensation for the forced absence and costs incurred
by the court. The final decision has been taken after 2 years of litigation. Although the dismissal was
solved, according to the media, misbehaviour in the workplace allegedly continues. According to the
medical and employees trade unions, the chairman of Lithuanian doctors' trade union Ms A.
Kavaliauskaitė is still allegedly facing psychological pressure at work today.
III. Perception and political will
Studies conducted in 2009, showed growing public willingness to participate in anti-corruption
initiatives and a positive public perception of whistleblowers as brave and proactive people. The
Lithuanian Map of Corruption 2011 revealed that more than 80 per cent of respondents took a positive
view of whistleblowers, but only 15 per cent of respondents indicated a personal willingness to engage
in anti-corruption activities, and a number of those who actually do so are even smaller.
The public still thinks that reporting harms the ones who report and still feels fear of losing a job and
being publicly destroyed. Despite that, thousands of reports reach institutions annually (with a much
lower percentage of valuable reports).
IV. Strengths, weaknesses and recommendations
Strengths
Weaknesses
- It is notable that focus for the whistleblowers is
- Lack of national law and/ or legal provisions on
increasing both in political and social levels.
whistleblower protection in Lithuania.
- Positive tendencies in the public discourse.
- Public authorities do not have a common
position towards whistleblowers protection. It is
not clear if extra law amendments or new
legislative acts are necessary according to them.
Opportunities
Threats
- Collecting best practices from other countries
- Legislative procrastination and no definition of
and adopting them in the national level;
what whistleblowing is;
- Tendencies of some favourable politics towards
- As there is no real protection, potential
better whistleblowers protection;
whistleblowers can get into a situation where they
- SIS made positive shifts towards better and more themselves will become defendants; it would not
efficient regulation.
only discourage others potential whistleblowers
- As TI Lithuania noticed that legislative acts are
but also it would give a negative impact for the
hard to amend, organization concentrated on such
future;
acts that are not laws in the hierarchical sense but
- Because of employers abuse of powers,
regulate the security of the reporting channels.
employees rather failure to report about the
This is to be noted as a successful
ad hoc solution
possible violations.
for the moment.
V. References and sources
Literature:
1. “Hot lines” in Lithuania- analysis and recommendations made by “Transparency International”
Lithua
nia http://transparency.lt/media/filer_public/2013/01/22/karstosios_linijos_lietuvoje-
_analize_ir_rekomendacijos.pdf
Websites:
2. www.transparency.lt
3. www.drasuszodis.lt
4.
www.stt.lt
5. www.lrs.lt
6. www.lsveikata.lt
7.
www.lrv.lt