Providing an Alternative to Silence:
Towards Greater Protection and Support for
Whistleblowers in the EU
COUNTRY REPORT: FINLAND
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 at
www.transparency.org. All national reports are available upon reques
t 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
Research methodology for cataloguing and assessing
whistleblower legislation in the EU-27
May 2012
I. Research objectives This research project aims to identify and inventory whistleblower (WB) legislation (laws,
rules, regulations, frameworks, etc.) in each EU country, and to assess them against the
latest international best practices.
The goals are to:
pinpoint legislative and regulatory gaps around which advocacy efforts can be
planned and implemented;
highlight best practices currently being utilised and under consideration; and
identify opportunities where the perception of whistleblowing and
whistleblowers can be enhanced.
The research findings will support broader efforts to implement and strengthen WB
protection laws, empower whistleblowers to come forward, help to ensure that they are
adequately protected from retaliation, and enhance the official and cultural appreciation of
whistleblowing and its role in raising accountability in the public and private sectors.
Questionnaire Depending on your country’s situation, not all of the questions will apply. Please note where
a question does not apply or no information is available. Unless stated otherwise, these
questions apply to laws and regulations for the public and/or private sector (some laws may
apply to one or the other, or both, depending on the context). If needed, provide the
information separately, depending on the sector to which it applies.
Legislation, oversight and enforcement Do any specific laws or regulations (e.g. anti-corruption, civil service, witness protection,
labour law) contain WB provisions? If so, do they cover the public sector, private sector or
both – or portions of these? Finland does not have any stand-alone WB law or similar law.
No specific whistleblower protection system is in place in Finland. To protect persons report-
ing offences from retaliation, Finnish authorities rely on the provisions concerning victims
and witnesses as well as provisions of administrative and labour law. The report of the UN-
CAC of Finland stated that fact that there are no specific rules for the protection of whistle-
blowers in labour and administrative law is a concern.
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/ExecutiveSummaries/V1183525e.pdf)
As stated in the OECD 3rd monitoring report on Finland regarding corruption: ‘Concerning
the detection and reporting of foreign bribery, the Working Group is concerned by the lack of
reporting mechanisms within key government agencies, including FINNVERA1, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the Tax Administration. It recommends that Finland introduce
appropriate measures to facilitate reporting by public officials to law enforcement authorities.
Noting the absence of whistle blower protection, the Group further recommends that Finland
introduce mechanisms to ensure that public and private sector employees who report in good
faith and on reasonable grounds are protected from discriminatory or disciplinary action.’
(http://www.oecd.org/daf/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-
briberyconvention/46212643.pdf) In OECD 3rd monitoring report on Finland regarding corruption, the OECD stated as
following: ‘There is no specific whistleblower protection system in Finland to protect from
discriminatory or disciplinary action public or private sector employees who report in good
faith and on reasonable grounds suspected acts of foreign bribery to competent authorities.
Finnish authorities rely on the existence of some limited levels of witness protection, and the
ability of employees who are dismissed without cause from employment to bring action
against employers under labour laws in Finland and as a result of the strong union movement
in Finland. Authorities further stated that corporate codes of conduct usually contain some
form of accommodation for whistleblowers. The lead examiners also heard from civil society
representatives that there is not a strong culture of blowing the whistle in Finland, and that
there is instead a preference for the internal resolution of issues.’
(http://www.oecd.org/daf/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-
briberyconvention/46212643.pdf) As stated in the OECD 3rd monitoring report on Finland regarding corruption: ‘Despite these
explanations, the OECD Working Group is again concerned that Finland’s position is out-of-
step with that of other Parties. The 2009 Recommendation, which reflects the development of
standards by the Parties in this regard, calls on Parties to ensure that appropriate measures are
in place to protect from discriminatory or disciplinary action public or private sector
employees who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities
suspected acts of bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions
(Recommendation IX(iii)). Witness protection provides limited protection in the context of
judicial proceedings only. Labour laws only protected against dismissal and do not cover
other forms of discrimination that may follow a whistle blower report. Civil society
representatives referred, in this regard, to a high-profile case in which a company sought to
sue an employee who leaked classified information which related to foreign bribery
1 Finnvera is a specialised financing company owned by the State of Finland. It provides its clients with loans,
guarantees, venture capital investments and export credit guarantees. Finnvera is the official Export Credit
Agency (ECA) of Finland.
allegations. Corporate codes of conduct may assist, but this involves a deferral of
responsibility by Finnish authorities which cannot guarantee a uniform and adequate level of
protection. Furthermore, corporate codes of conduct do not cover the protection of public
sector whistle blowers. Given the difficulties in detecting foreign bribery cases, the OECD
Working Group considers this to be a significant deficiency in Finland‟s fight against foreign
bribery.’
(http://www.oecd.org/daf/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-
briberyconvention/46212643.pdf) The OECD Working Group recommended that ‘The lead examiners recommend that Finland
introduce mechanisms that are capable of ensuring that public or private sector employees
who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds suspected acts of foreign bribery to com-
petent authorities are protected from discriminatory or disciplinary action. Once established,
Finland should take steps to raise awareness of such mechanisms….Regarding whistleblower
protection, the Working Group recommends that Finland introduce mechanisms to ensure
that public and private sector employees who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds
suspected acts of foreign bribery to competent authorities are protected from discriminatory
or disciplinary action, along with appropriate measures for raising awareness of these mecha-
nisms (2009 Recommendation IX(iii)).’
(http://www.oecd.org/daf/briberyininternationalbusiness/anti-
briberyconvention/46212643.pdf) Depending on the matter there are some regulations in Finland which may be directly or
indirectly concern the WB issue. E.g. the regulations concerning the accountants’ duties to
report or their regulations and practices. (Limited Liability Companies Act (separate annex),
Accounting Act and Ordinance, and Auditing Act (no English translations available on these))
Civil Servant Act/Valtion virkamieslaki 750/1994 (no English translation available) Chapter
7, section 25, includes the allowed (and not allowed) grounds for dismissal for civil servants.
Whistleblowing is not mentioned there.
In Finland there are some regulations concerning the protection of witnesses but there is no
separate Witness Protection Law. These existing regulations in question can be found from
Criminal Investigations Act/ Esitutkintalaki (449/1987) (the Ministry of Justice was not able
to provide the English translation about this law). 1.1.2014 there is going to be in force a new
Criminal Investigations Act (English translation is not available of it either). The regulations
in Criminal Investigations Act concern the publicity of the pre-trial investigation process.
Furthermore, the applicable provisions (e.g. the suppress of the contact and personal
information) can be found from Population Information Act/Väestötietolaki (661/2009). Also
on the basis of Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings in General Courts/ Laki
oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta yleisissä tuomioistuimissa (370/2007) (annexed) the publicity
of the court documents may be restricted.
Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings in General Courts (annexed) includes provisions
concerning the concealment of the contact details of witnesses. Also provision (31c) in Police
Act (annexed – the new Police Act comes into force 1.1.2014 and of it no English translation
is available) concerning the telecommunication surveillance may be employed. The Act on
the Openness of the Government Activities (annexed) includes provisions concerning the
secrecy of the documents.
‘Finland does not have a witness protection programme as such. Nevertheless, a certain de-
gree of witness protection can be afforded by relying on the nondisclosure of information
concerning the identity and the whereabouts of witnesses to be heard during pre-trial investi-
gations and in court. As a relatively small and homogenous country with an extensive degree
of transparency and high technology, a witness relocation programme would be very difficult
to implement. In general, a pressing need for a relocation programme has not yet arisen –
albeit there have been discussions about its introduction based on the identification of good
practices in the EU….Finland is currently considering the adoption of an obligation for public
officials to report corruption offences, or even a more general obligation to cover all offences.
More generally, no specific whistleblower protection system is in place. To protect persons
reporting offences from retaliation, Finnish authorities rely on the few provisions concerning
victims and witnesses as well as provisions of administrative and labour law (Employment
Contracts Act – separate annex).’
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/7-9September2011/V1183525e.pdf) ‘The UNCAC recommended Finland to Consider to adopt statistical information tools to
monitor the witness protection policy, and, if appropriate, establish a witness protection pro-
gramme.’
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/7-9September2011/V1183525e.pdf) The National Bureau of Investigation has a witness protection unit. But the information about
it is not public.
What comes to the witnesses in courts, Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 17, Section 34,
states that:
‘(1) A witness, another person heard for probative purposes and an injured party may be
heard in the main hearing without the presence of a party or another person, if the court
deems that this is appropriate and such hearing is necessary (1) in order to protect the person being heard or a person related to said person in the man-
ner referred to in chapter 15, section 10, subsection 2 (Failure to report a serious offence)
of
the Criminal Code, from a threat directed at life or health; (2) if the person being heard
would otherwise not reveal what he or she knows about the matter; or (3) if a person disturbs
or attempts to mislead the person being heard during his or her testimony. (2) A party shall be reserved an opportunity to put questions to the person being heard.
(3) A witness or other person may be heard in a hearing closed to the public, as provided in
the Act on the Publicity of General Court Proceedings.’
In Finland there have been debates about possibility of the anonymous witnessing in courts,
but I do not know whether there is some working group thinking this issue or not. In Finland
there are security rooms in courts where the witness can be held without s/he exposing
his/her faces to the defendant.
With regard to the UNCAC requirements in the area of law enforcement, the report of the
UNCAC made for Finland following recommendation: Explore the possibility of establishing
a comprehensive system for the protection of whistle blowers.
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/ExecutiveSummaries/V1183525e.pdf)
Have any laws or regulations related to WB been formally proposed by, or submitted to,
national legislative or administrative bodies since 2007? If so, what are their provisions,
title and status? There is currently a working group which task is to consider the possibility to introduce some
regulations relating witness protection in Finland. There are yet no
documents/papers/suggestions available concerning the work of this working group. But
some documents may be available to public in November 2012.
Concerning special WB laws, the OECD has recommended Finland to consider establishing
some protection system for WBs. The only anti-corruption organ in Finland, the Anti-
Corruption Network has discussed on the matter relating the need to establish special laws
concerning WB in Finland in its meetings. On basis of this discussion the Anti-Corruption
Network tried to gain the issue to the Governmental Platform of the current Prime minister
Jyrki Katainen Government but this attempt failed.
Does the country have an independent agency, authority or official that receives and
investigates complaints of WB retaliation or improper investigations?
-No independent authority of this kind in Finland.
-The local police investigates the crimes in Finland. The Police is the general criminal investigative
authority and it is for the Police to detect and investigate corruption related offences (bribery,
embezzlement, fraud, misuse of funds..) committed in Finland.
-The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is the national central authority in charge of the
investigation of criminal cases having wide national significance or coverage or criminal cases with
links abroad.
-The prosecutor investigates the suspected crimes committed by police.
Are there any civil, criminal, professional or other penalties for individuals who retaliate
against whistleblowers? Normal criminal and civil law provisions are applicable in here. Of course, there can be
considered whether the provisions concerning discrimination, and also e.g. provision
concerning disturbance of domestic peace (Chapter 21, sections 1-2, of the Finnish Criminal
Code – annexed) could be applied here.
Have there been any official or unofficial reviews of the effectiveness of whistleblower
protection practices or agencies? If so, what are the findings? If not, how would you assess
the effectiveness? I far as I know there has not been any reviews in Finland concerning the effectiveness of
whistleblower protection practices or agencies. A private company BDO sells WB services to
both private sector and public sector actors. I do not know whether they have made any
reviews concerning Finland.
Scope of application
What types of disclosures are covered under whistleblowing (e.g. corruption, fraud,
bribery, financial waste, dangers to public health, safety or environment)?
There is no separate law on wb in Finland, but following laws can be considered in regarding this
question:
According to Finnish Criminal Code, the Chapter 15, section 10 ‘
Failure to report a serious offence’
(563/1998):
(1) A person who knows of imminent genocide, preparation of genocide, breach of the
prohibition of chemical weapons, breach of the prohibition of biological weapons,
compromising of the sovereignty of Finland, treason, aggravated treason, espionage,
aggravated espionage, high treason, aggravated high treason, rape, aggravated rape,
aggravated sexual abuse of a child, murder, manslaughter, killing, aggravated assault,
robbery, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, hostage taking, aggravated criminal
mischief, aggravated endangerment of health, nuclear device offence, hijacking, an
offence committed with terrorist intent referred to in chapter 34 a, section 1(1)(3),
aggravated impairment of the environment or aggravated narcotics offence, and fails
to report it to the authorities or the endangered person in time to prevent the offence,
shall be sentenced, if the offence or a punishable attempt is committed, for a failure to
report a serious offence to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.
(2) However, a person shall not be sentenced for a failure to report a serious offence, if,
in order to prevent the offence, he/she would have had to denounce a spouse, a
sibling, a direct ascendant or descendant, a person living in the same household or a
person who is close owing to another comparable personal relationship.
In addition journalists have the right to protect their sources based on the Freedom of Speech Act
§16 and the Code of Judicial Procedure.
What types of individuals, if any, are covered as whistleblowers – beyond traditional
employees (e.g. consultants, contractors, trainees, volunteers, temporary workers)? There is no special WB law in Finland and thus no this kind of protection.
Whistleblower protection provisions What types of retaliation and harassment are whistleblowers protected from
(e.g. demotion, firing, unwanted transfer, stripping of job duties or benefits, reduction of
pay, negative evaluations – or the threat of these)? There is no special WB law in Finland and thus no this kind of protection. But see:
Employment Contracts Act – separate annex and Civil Servant Act/Valtion virkamieslaki
750/1994.
Are whistleblowers specifically protected if good-faith disclosures are found to be
incorrect or inaccurate?
There is no this kind of protection in Finland.
Does the burden fall on the employer to prove that any action taken against an employee
was motivated by reasons other than the employee making a disclosure? There is no this kind of regulation in Finland.
Procedures for disclosure Do any WB laws include internal or external disclosure mechanisms? Do any external
disclosure mechanisms allow disclosures to be made to NGOs, the media, trade unions,
business associations or other “non-official” actors? No this kind of regulation. However, the current legislation would enable some sort of a
disclosure mechanism and the voluntary protection of WBs.
Are certain types of disclosures prohibited or restricted (e.g. state secrets, business/trade
secrets, confidential information)? There is no this kind of regulation in Finland.
List any hotlines/helplines, online disclosure forms or other publicly accessible disclosure tools.
-In the Internet site of Police of Finland, there is possibility to give tips (concerning non-emergency
information relating to crimes) to police also anonymously. This site is called Nettivinkki (Net Tip).
There is also an online possibility to report the offence to the Police. This can also be made
anonymously. Also the Police can be telephoned and informed about the suspected crime.
There are no hotlines available to general public to report wb in Finland.
Relief, remedies and participation What types of remedies are available for whistleblowers (e.g. job reinstatement, lost pay,
interim relief, future earnings, monetary reward, legal fees, pain and suffering) None. But these can be executed voluntarily. Normal regulations concerning compensation
for damage can be applied if someone has caused damage.
Are there specific mechanisms for public sector whistleblowers to participate in follow-up,
corrective action or policy reforms that result from their disclosures? None. But these can be executed voluntarily.
Are whistleblowers who have been retaliated against entitled to a fair hearing before an
impartial forum, with full right of appeal (a “genuine day in court”)? There is no this kind of regulation in Finland.
Public awareness and societal values
Briefly characterise the public and media perception of whistleblowing (i.e. “heroes” or “snitches”,
or somewhere in between?). What are the cultural or political barriers/deterrents to
whistleblowing? Include anecdotes if any.
The media itself (by the means of the investigative journalism) has exposed some corruption cases
e.g. the case concerning the suspected bribery of foreign public officials by Finnish company in Costa
Rica. Journalists have the right to protect their sources based on the Freedom of Speech Act §16 and
the Code of Judicial Procedure. During the recent years Finnish media has been very active in
exposing corruption related cases. The media in Finland works as a watchdog and I think that general
public sees this being a good thing.
Briefly characterise the perception of WB among political and economic leaders, and the level of
political will to protect whistleblowers. Include anecdotes if any.
In Finland there have not been much public/political debates about the need to establish a
special WB protection law.
What terms are used for “whistleblowers” or “whistleblowing” in your national language(s), what
is the connotation, and how do the terms roughly translate into English?
In Finnish language the direct translation for whistle-blower is
pilliinviheltäjä and it is used very
rarely. However, wording
ilmiantaja (direct translation: a person who finds out something) is more
commonly used.
Cases
If information is available, briefly describe:
one WB case that reveals loopholes in laws or regulations, and
one “successful” case in which a whistleblower was protected and the disclosure was fa-
vourably adequately acted upon
No information available.
If available, include any available statistics on the number/prevalence of WB (e.g. via ALACs or
WB/corruption hotlines).
No information available.
IV. Country report
The research should be presented in a country report of approximately 8-10 pages (excluding charts).
The report must include the following sections:
1. Introduction (1 page)
An overview/summary of key findings – including the general aspects, strengths and weaknesses
of WB laws, regulations and protections; and perceptions of WB in the country. Very briefly include
noteworthy legislation (passed, defeated, proposed), and statistics or anecdotes as appropriate.
In Finland there is no specific whistleblower protection system in place, nor any legislation
specially concerning wb. To protect persons reporting offences from retaliation, Finnish
authorities rely on the provisions concerning victims and witnesses as well as provisions of
administrative and labour law. There are some regulations which may be directly or indirectly
concern the WB issue: e.g. the regulations concerning the accountants’ duties to report or
their regulations and practices.
Neither does Finland have a separate witness protection programme as such. However, a
certain degree of witness protection can be afforded by relying on the nondisclosure of
information concerning the identity and the whereabouts of witnesses to be heard during pre-
trial investigations and in court.
There is currently a working group which task is to consider the possibility to introduce some
regulations
relating
witness
protection
in
Finland.
There
are
yet
no
documents/papers/suggestions available concerning the work of this working group. But
some documents may be available to public in November 2012.
2. A compilation, description and assessment of WB protection laws (5-6 pages)
A detailed description of standalone WB laws and regulations (including title and year of
passage/implementation), and any specific laws and regulations that include WB provisions.
Include laws or regulations that have been formally proposed and their status. Use the chart to list
the key provisions of each law or regulation.
Finland does not have a stand-alone WB law.
3. Perceptions and political will (1-2 pages)
Describe the general perception of whistleblowing and whistleblowers among the general public,
the media, and the public and private sectors. Describe the level of political will in
protecting/supporting whistleblowers, and the willingness to carry out corrective action and policy
reforms based on whistleblowers’ disclosures. Are there any unique or notable cultural or political
barriers to or incentives for whistleblowing? Include any information on cases here.
The OECD has recommended Finland to consider establishing special protection for WBs.
The only anti-corruption organ in Finland, the Anti-Corruption Network has discussed on the
matter relating the need to establish special laws concerning WB in Finland. An on basis of
this discussion the Anti-Corruption Network tried to gain the issue to the Governmental
Platform of the current Prime minister Jyrki Katainen Government but this attempt failed.
It is very difficult to try to identify any cultural or political barriers for establishing the wb
regulation in Finland. In Finland there have not been much public/political debates about the
need to establish a special WB protection law.
The Finnish media has a strong role as a watchdog in Finnish society. The media itself (by the
means of the investigative journalism) has exposed some corruption cases e.g. the case
concerning the suspected bribery of foreign public officials by Finnish company in Costa
Rica. Media reports actively about suspected cases of corruption. Journalists have the right to
protect their sources based on the Freedom of Speech Act §16 and the Code of Judicial
Procedure. During the recent years Finnish media has been very active in exposing corruption
related cases. I think that general public sees this active role of media in exposing cases of
corruption as a good thing.
4. Strengths, weaknesses and recommendations (1-2 pages)
Identify best practices to be noted and potentially emulated in other countries, and weaknesses
that should be addressed. Information on ongoing reform efforts and insights on routes to reform
would be useful.
In Finland there is no specific whistleblower protection system is in place. Neither does
Finland have a separate witness protection programme as such.
The UNCAC recommended Finland to explore the possibility of establishing a
comprehensive system for the protection of whistle blowers and, if appropriate, establish a
witness protection programme. Regarding whistleblower protection, the OECD Working
Group recommends that Finland should introduce mechanisms to ensure that public and
private sector employees who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds suspected acts
of foreign bribery to competent authorities are protected from discriminatory or disciplinary
action, along with appropriate measures for raising awareness of these mechanisms (2009
Recommendation
IX(iii)).
(http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/WorkingGroups/ImplementationReview
Group/ExecutiveSummaries/V1183525e.pdf)
In Finland there should be carefully analysed whether the current regulations indirectly
concerning the wb are sufficient or whether there would be a need for separate and specific
legislation concerning wb. More political and public debates are needed on the matter.