This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Whistleblowing-Regelungen für EU-Bedienstete - SEC(2012)679'.


















 
 
EUROPEAN 
  COMMISSION 
Brussels, 6.12.2012  
SEC(2012) 679 final 
  
COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMISSION 
Communication from Vice-President Šefčovič to the Commission on Guidelines on 
Whistleblowing 
 
EN    EN 

 
Guidelines on Whistleblowing 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. General 
Having procedures for raising concerns about fraud, corruption or other serious wrongdoing is 
relevant for all responsible organisations and for the people who work there. While good 
internal control systems can reduce the probability of something going seriously wrong, this 
risk can never be reduced to zero. Where this risk materialises, the first people to realise or 
suspect the problem will often be those who work in or with the organisation. Yet unless the 
culture is one where employees believe that it is safe and accepted that such concerns are 
raised, the risk is that people will stay silent. This denies the organisation an important 
opportunity to detect and investigate the concern, to take any appropriate action and to protect 
its assets, integrity and reputation.  
The most effective way to encourage staff to report concerns is to provide assurance of 
protection of their position. Clearly defined channels for internal reporting as well as safe and 
accepted routes through which staff may raise concerns outside the organisation as an option 
of last resort should be in place. 
Viewed in this way, having whistleblowing procedures and whistleblower protection in place 
is simply a question of good management and a means of putting into practice the principle of 
accountability. They contribute to improving the diligence, integrity and responsibility of an 
organisation. 
It is against this background that rules on whistleblowing were adopted and included in the 
Staff Regulations (articles 22a and 22b) in 2004. They complement the general principle of 
loyalty to the European Union, the obligation to assist and tender advice to superiors (Article 
21) as well as the rules on how to deal with orders which are considered to be irregular or 
likely to give rise to serious difficulties (Article 21a). 
While these rules have already triggered a number of significant investigations by the 
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), some staff may be reticent to make full use of the 
whistleblowing procedure, because of a fear of negative repercussions on their reputation or 
career. As part of the Commission's duty to have regard for the interests of officials ("devoir 
de sollicitude"), it is necessary to ensure that members of staff who report serious 
wrongdoings or concerns in good faith are afforded the utmost confidentiality and greatest 
degree of protection against any retaliation as a result of their whistleblowing. 
As whistleblowing arrangements are widely recognised as an important tool to detect fraud, 
corruption and serious irregularities, it is important that staff fully understand the types of 
situations where the obligation to "blow the whistle" applies, and to whom they should 
address their concerns. Providing guidance on this issue is part of the Commission's overall 
EN 
2  
 
EN 

 
ethics policy, which aims inter alia at clarifying the rules regarding professional ethics in the 
Commission1. 
Accordingly, the Commission has issued the following guidelines, in agreement with OLAF.  
1.2. Basic 
principles 
•  Members of staff have a duty to report serious irregularities. 
•  For this purpose, members of staff must have a choice between a number of reporting 
channels for whistleblowing. The principal channel is the normal chain of hierarchical 
command. If staff consider it to be safer to bypass the normal chain of hierarchical 
command, they must be able to do so. Under certain conditions, staff may address their 
concerns to another EU institution as an option of last resort. 
•  Members of staff who report serious irregularities in good faith must not under any 
circumstances be subject to retaliation for whistleblowing. They must be protected and 
their identity must remain confidential if they so desire. 
•  The reported facts must be verified in the appropriate manner and, if they are confirmed, 
the Commission will take all necessary steps to ensure the appropriate follow-up. 
•  The rights of defence of any person implicated by the reported incidents must be respected. 
•  Malicious or frivolous denunciations will not be tolerated. 
1.3. 
Scope of the policy 
The Commission's whistleblowing rules and guidelines apply to all members of staff, 
irrespective of their administrative position2. 
1.4. Definitions 
For the purpose of these guidelines, a whistleblower is a member of staff, acting in good faith, 
who reports facts discovered in the course of or in connection with his or her duties which 
point to the existence of serious irregularities. The reporting should be done in writing and 
without delay.3 
Under the whistleblowing rules, staff are obliged to report serious irregularities. In the present 
context, serious irregularities are illegal activities, including fraud and corruption, and serious 
professional wrongdoings. As the whistleblowing arrangements are essentially a detection 
mechanism to bring cases to the attention of OLAF, the duty to report concerns only serious 
                                                 

See Communication from Vice-President Kallas to the Commission on enhancing the environment for 
professional ethics in the Commission, SEC(2008)301 final, and the Practical Guide to Staff Ethics and 
Conduct. 

While the whistleblowing rules do not strictly speaking apply to seconded national experts, trainees, 
interim staff and local agents, these categories of staff are also encouraged to make use of the 
arrangements set out in this documents and the Commission undertakes to protect these categories of 
staff against retaliation if they do so in good faith. 

Prior to reporting, a staff member may seek guidance and support as described in section 5. This does 
not have to be done in writing. 
EN 
3  
 
EN 

 
professional wrongdoings, and particularly those that may be detrimental to the financial 
interests of the European Union. 
Accordingly, not every disclosure of any type of information qualifies as whistleblowing in 
the sense of these rules. For example, the rules are not intended to apply to the reporting of 
the following types of information: 
• 
Information already in the public domain (for example: newspaper articles, publicly 
available audits); 
• 
Unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay; 
• 
Matters of a trivial nature;  
• 
Disagreements over legitimate policy; 
• 
Information not linked to the performance of one's duties.4 
Neither do the rules apply to information for which specific procedures are available to staff: 
• 
Personnel issues where staff have a personal interest in the outcome. In these cases, 
staff may wish to exercise their statutory rights, for example by lodging a request or 
complaint with DG HR under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations5; 
• 
Harassment claims and personal disagreements or conflicts with colleagues or 
hierarchy. In appropriate cases, staff may wish to address themselves to their Human 
Resources Unit, to the Mediation Service6, to HR.B.5 (Equal opportunities and 
working conditions) or to a confidential counsellor7, or to lodge a request for 
assistance with DG HR under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations8. 
Nor do the rules apply to disclosures that cannot be considered as reasonable or honest, such 
as: 
• 
Abusive disclosures (repeated disclosures of alleged facts aimed merely at paralysing 
a service); 
• 
Malicious, frivolous or potentially defamatory disclosures (i.e. false or unverifiable 
accusations with the aim of harming another person's integrity or reputation). 
"Good faith" can be taken to mean the belief in the veracity of the reported facts, i.e. the fact 
that the member of staff reasonably and honestly believes the transmitted information to be 
true. Good faith is presumed unless and until proven otherwise. 
                                                 

This is not to say that the Commission does not react to this information, but that the rules on 
whistleblowing do not apply in this case. 

http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/appeals/Pages/index.aspx 

http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/serv/en/mediation/Pages/index.aspx 

http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/equal_opportunities/respectful_working/harasse 
ment/employee Pages/contacts.aspx 


http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/appeals/Pages/assistance.aspx 
EN 
4  
 
EN 

 
"Retaliation" is defined as any direct or indirect action or threat of action which is unjustly 
detrimental to the whistleblower and resulting from the whistleblowing, including, but not 
limited to, harassment, discrimination, negative appraisals and acts of vindictiveness. 
"Confidentiality of identity" means that the identity of the whistleblower is known to the 
recipient of the information, but is kept confidential vis-à-vis the person(s) potentially 
implicated in the serious irregularity reported and used on a strict need-to-know basis. 
"Anonymity" refers to the situation whereby the identity of the source of the information is 
not known to the recipient. 
Staff members who make a report in bad faith, particularly if it is based knowingly on false or 
misleading information, shall not be protected and shall normally be subject to disciplinary 
measures. The burden of proof in this context is on the Commission. 
2. REPORTING PROCEDURES 
Internal whistleblowing – first option 
Staff members who, in the course of or in connection with their duties, discover that serious 
irregularities may have occurred or may be occurring, are obliged to report  this discovery 
forthwith and in writing to either their immediate superior or to their Director-General or 
Head of Service. 
Internal whistleblowing – second option 
If there is a concern that this disclosure may lead to retaliation or that the intended recipient of 
the report is personally implicated in the serious irregularities, then the staff member may also 
bypass this direct means of internal reporting and address his or her report to the Secretary-
General or directly to OLAF. OLAF may also be notified through the Fraud Notification 
System9. 
In any case, the recipient of the information is in turn obliged to transmit the information thus 
received without delay to OLAF. Therefore, while the staff member concerned has a choice of 
reporting channels, the information should ultimately reach OLAF in a short period of time. 
External whistleblowing – option of last resort  
Upon receipt of the information reported internally, OLAF or the Commission must give the 
whistleblower within 60 days of receipt of the information an indication of the period of time 
that it considers reasonable and necessary to take appropriate action. 
If no action is taken within that period of time, or if the whistleblower can demonstrate that 
the period of time set is unreasonable in light of all the circumstances of the case, he or she 
may make use of the possibility of external whistleblowing as provided for in Article 22b of 
the Staff Regulations. 
Under this Article, if neither the Commission nor OLAF has taken appropriate action within a 
reasonable period, the staff member who reported the wrongdoing has the right to bring his or 
                                                 

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/contact_us/index_en.html 
EN 
5  
 
EN 

 
her concerns to the attention of the President of either the Council, the Parliament or the Court 
of Auditors, or to the Ombudsman. In this case, the whistleblower protection continues to 
apply. 
However, the duties of discretion and of loyalty imply that this is an option of last resort, 
justifiable only if the official concerned honestly and reasonably believes that the information 
disclosed, and any allegation contained in it, are substantially true and if s/he has allowed the 
Commission or OLAF a reasonable period of time to take the appropriate action.  
The Commission generally receives and handles large quantities of confidential information, 
much of it highly sensitive and some of it of great commercial value. The Commission is 
under the obligation to ensure that this confidentiality is maintained and Commission staff 
members are therefore necessarily subjected to a duty of discretion. 
External disclosure to other EU institutions, which are clearly able to hold the Commission to 
account because of their institutional role, but are also themselves subjected to the duty of 
discretion, therefore strikes an effective balance between the public interests of confidentiality 
and loyalty and those of transparency and accountability. 
It is up to the staff member to choose the most appropriate channel for reporting the serious 
irregularities that they must disclose. However, if a matter is reported to a Commission 
service that is not competent to deal with it, it is up to that service to transmit, in the strictest 
confidence, the relevant information and documents to the competent service and to inform 
the member of staff accordingly. 
3. PROTECTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS 
Any staff member who reports a serious irregularity, provided that this is done in good faith 
and in compliance with the provisions of these guidelines, shall be protected against any acts 
of retaliation. Regarding burden of proof, it shall be up to the person taking any adverse 
measure against a whistleblower to establish that the measure was motivated by reasons other 
than the reporting. 
It should be noted that staff members will not be expected to prove that the wrongdoing is 
occurring, nor will they lose protection simply because their honest concern turned out to be 
unfounded.  
The protection continues to apply in cases of external disclosures, provided that the staff 
member honestly and reasonably believes that the information and any allegation in it are 
substantially true. In this context, account will be taken of any information the staff member 
has had from the Commission and from OLAF following the initial internal reporting. 
The following specific protective measures apply: 
Confidentiality of identity 
The protection of a person reporting a serious irregularity in good faith shall be guaranteed 
first of all by the fact that their identity will be treated in confidence. This means that their 
name will not be revealed to the person(s) potentially implicated in the alleged wrongdoings 
or to any other person without a strict need to know, unless the whistleblower personally 
authorises the disclosure of his/her identity or this is a requirement in any subsequent criminal 
EN 
6  
 
EN 

 
law proceedings. In all other cases, the Commission is committed to keeping the identity of 
the whistleblower confidential. To this end, the Commission has asked OLAF not to include 
the identity of the whistleblower in the information about investigations that OLAF transmits 
to the Commission. 
In this respect the Court has ruled that disciplinary procedures that are opened on the basis of 
information of which the source is not revealed are regular, as long as it does not affect the 
possibility of the person who is subject to a subsequent disciplinary procedure to comment on 
the facts or documents transmitted, or on the conclusions that the Commission draws from 
them.10 The disciplinary rules of the Commission allow it to keep the identity of the 
whistleblower confidential, while ensuring that the rights of defence of the person concerned 
are fully respected. 
Mobility 
If the member of staff concerned wishes to be moved to another Commission department in 
order to safeguard him- or herself against potential hostile reactions from his or her immediate 
work environment, then the Commission will take reasonable steps to facilitate such a move. 
In practice, those members of staff who consider it necessary to move to a different DG or 
service may address themselves to the Director responsible for resources of his or her own 
service or to the Central Career Guidance Service (SCOP)11 in DG HR, who will provide 
them with counseling in order to identify the type of post which fits their profile and 
professional aspirations. 
In urgent and duly justified cases, the protective measure of a transfer in application of Article 
7(1) of the Staff Regulations will be taken by the Director-General of DG HR, and by the 
Secretary General of the Commission for staff working in DG HR. 
Appraisal and promotion 
Particular care will be taken during staff appraisal and promotion procedures to ensure that 
the whistleblower suffers no adverse consequences in this context. Accordingly, the new 
appraisal system12 provides for the possibility of the whistleblower to ask that the role of 
appeal assessor is taken on by the Director-General of DG HR or by the Secretary General. 
Anonymity 
In order for the Commission to be able to apply protective measures, the staff member 
concerned should identify him- or herself as a whistleblower to the institution, and to observe 
the procedures as outlined above.  
The protection which is offered reduces the need and justification for anonymity. Anonymity 
deprives the investigative services of the possibility of asking the source for clarification or 
more information and enhances the risk of frivolous, malicious or unreliable information.  
                                                 
10 
Judgment of 15 May 1997, N / Commission (T-273/94, RecFP_p._II-289) (cf. point 81).  
11 
http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/career_management/Pages/index.aspx#1 
12 
Article 3 (2) of Commission Decision of 14 November 2011 on general provisions for implementing 
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. 
EN 
7  
 
EN 

 
For these reasons, anonymous reporting is not encouraged.13  
Penalties for those taking retaliatory action 
No members of staff or managers of the Commission may use their position to prevent other 
members of staff from complying with their obligation to report serious irregularities. 
Any form of retaliation undertaken by a staff member against any person for reporting a 
serious irregularity in good faith is prohibited. In such cases, disciplinary measures will 
normally be taken. 
Where members of staff consider that they have been the victim of retaliation as a result of the 
disclosure of a serious irregularity, they shall be entitled to ask for assistance from the 
Commission under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and to request that protective measures 
be adopted. Such requests should be addressed to DG HR. 
Limits 
As explained above, the whistleblowing provisions are concerned with disclosure of 
information pointing to fraud, corruption and other comparable serious wrongdoings. They 
are not intended to be used as substitutes for grievance procedures where staff have some 
personal interest in - or seek to dictate - the outcome. They are also inappropriate for dealing 
with disagreements over legitimate policies. Their purpose is to allow the staff member to 
raise a concern about wrongdoings so that those in charge may look into it.  
It should be noted that the protection may be lost if the staff member makes unwarranted or 
damaging allegations that s/he cannot show to be honest or reasonable. The effect of this is 
that wherever a staff member is contemplating a disclosure in the sense of these guidelines, it 
is advisable to let the facts speak for themselves. 
Similarly, if the staff member makes the disclosure for purposes of private gain – for instance 
by selling the information to external parties – he or she will forfeit this protection as that 
would not be a legitimate disclosure in the sense of the whistleblowing rules.  
Finally, if the staff member is him- or herself implicated in the serious irregularities and 
decides to come forward and report these irregularities, this fact may constitute a significant 
attenuating circumstance in any ensuing disciplinary proceedings, but it is not a qualifying 
disclosure in the sense of this policy and does not provide him or her with full protection 
against disciplinary consequences on the basis of the whistleblowing rules. 
4. FEEDBACK TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
According to Article 22b of the Staff Regulations, OLAF or the Commission must give the 
whistleblower an indication of the time needed to take appropriate action. If no action is taken 
within that period of time, or if the whistleblower can demonstrate that the period of time set 
                                                 
13 
As potential whistleblowers may hesitate to come forward with their identity for fear of retaliatory 
action, the OLAF Fraud Notification System offers the facility to enter into an initially anonymous 
dialogue with specialised staff before a person decides to come forward and make use of the 
whistleblowing procedures. 
EN 
8  
 
EN 

 
is unreasonable in light of all the circumstances of the case, he or she may address his or her 
concerns to one of the other institutions referred to above.  
It should be noted that the whistleblower is entitled to be informed within 60 days of the time 
needed to take appropriate action, but that it is up to OLAF and/or the Commission to 
determine the appropriate course of action. 
5. GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT 
While reporting serious irregularities is an obligation under the Staff Regulations, some staff 
may be reticent to come forward and report their concerns. In order to help staff who are 
unsure of whether or not certain facts should be reported, the Commission offers confidential 
and impartial guidance and support to (potential) whistleblowers.  
Guidance to potential whistleblowers in an early stage also helps to avoid ill-advised 
reporting, which may cause frustration to the staff member concerned and may be detrimental 
to the interests and the reputation of the Commission. This guidance therefore lessens the 
risks of disclosure-related conflicts. 
The guidance and support function was until recently offered by the judicial and legal advice 
unit in OLAF. However, experience suggests that this is best carried out by a point of contact 
not connected with the investigation function of OLAF, taking account of the  fact that, in 
particular, support to whistleblowers is essentially the responsibility of the Commission as 
employer.  
In agreement with OLAF, it has therefore been decided to transfer this function to the 
Network of Ethics Correspondents of the Commission. Each DG and service of the 
Commission has one or several designated Ethics Correspondents14, who are trained to 
provide guidance to staff on ethical issues, including whistleblowing. 
These designated officials will provide confidential and impartial guidance on, for example, 
whether the information in question is covered by the whistleblowing rules, which reporting 
channel may best be used for the information concerned, and which alternative procedures are 
available if the information concerned does not qualify for whistleblowing ('signposting'). 
They will also be able to tender advice and guidance to staff members on protective measures 
that the staff member may wish to seek following the reporting.  
Naturally, this guidance function is without prejudice to the possibility of staff members to 
consult their line manager, or a specialised service15. 
In addition, the web-based Fraud Notification System of OLAF gives potential 
whistleblowers who hesitate to come forward the opportunity to enter into a dialogue with 
OLAF investigators, which allow these staff members to verify whether the information in 
their possession fall within the remit of OLAF. 
In case of doubt, staff are encouraged to seek the guidance offered to them when 
contemplating a disclosure under the whistleblowing rules. 
                                                 
14 
http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/ethics/Pages/index.aspx 
15 
Examples are OLAF, IDOC, DG HR.B.1 (ethics, rights and obligations) and SG.B.4 (public service 
ethics). 
EN 
9  
 
EN 

 
6. ROLE OF MANAGEMENT 
The duty on managers to notify OLAF of information received on the basis of the 
whistleblowing rules does not of itself discharge them from their own responsibilities to 
tackle the wrongdoing. 
Managers will therefore have to reflect on whether the evidence provided reveals 
shortcomings that could be redressed or requires other measures in addition to the 
transmission of the information to OLAF. In particular, if following such information it 
occurs that a procedural or organisational change could prevent the risk of serious 
professional wrongdoings in the future, such measures should be considered and, where 
appropriate, taken as soon as possible. Care should be taken that any such measure does not 
harm any future OLAF investigation into the reported facts. In case of doubt, managers are 
therefore advised to consult OLAF before taking any such measures.  
7. COMMUNICATION AND AWARENESS-RAISING 
In order to increase the awareness of the whistleblowing arrangements amongst staff, these 
guidelines will be given adequate publicity through the internal communication channels in 
the Commission and will be included in the course material of the Commission's courses and 
trainings on ethics and integrity. 
8. REVISION 
The practical application and effectiveness of these whistleblowing guidelines will be 
evaluated at the end of a period of three years following their adoption. In light of the results 
of this evaluation, these guidelines may be revised as appropriate. 
9. FINAL PROVISION 
This Communication replaces the Communication of Vice-President Kinnock to the 
Commission of 9 February 2004 on how to enhance effective application of the 
whistleblowing rules and protection of whistleblowers (SEC(2004 151/2), which is hereby 
abrogated. 
EN 
10  
 
EN 

 
ANNEX 1: Staff Regulations – articles on whistleblowing 
Article 22a  
1. Any official who, in the course of or in connection with the performance of his duties, 
becomes aware of facts which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible illegal 
activity, including fraud or corruption, detrimental to the interests of the Communities, or of 
conduct relating to the discharge of professional duties which may constitute a serious failure 
to comply with the obligations of officials of the Communities shall without delay inform 
either his immediate superior or his Director-General or, if he considers it useful, the 
Secretary-General, or the persons in equivalent positions, or the European Anti-Fraud Office 
(OLAF) direct. 
Information mentioned in the first subparagraph shall be given in writing. 
This paragraph shall also apply in the event of serious failure to comply with a similar 
obligation on the part of a Member of an institution or any other person in the service of or 
carrying out work for an institution.  
2. Any official receiving the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall without delay 
transmit to OLAF any evidence of which he is aware from which the existence of the 
irregularities referred to in paragraph 1 may be presumed. 
3. An official shall not suffer any prejudicial effects on the part of the institution as a result of 
having communicated the information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, provided that he 
acted reasonably and honestly. 
4. Paragraphs 1 to 3 shall not apply to documents, deeds, reports, notes or information in any 
form whatsoever held for the purposes of, or created or disclosed to the official in the course 
of, proceedings in legal cases, whether pending or closed. 
Article 22b  
1. An official who further discloses information as defined in Article 22a to the President of 
the Commission or of the Court of Auditors or of the Council or of the European Parliament, 
or to the European Ombudsman, shall not suffer any prejudicial effects on the part of the 
institution to which he belongs provided that both of the following conditions are met: 
(a) the official honestly and reasonably believes that the information disclosed, and any 
allegation contained in it, are substantially true; and 
(b) the official has previously disclosed the same information to OLAF or to his own 
institution and has allowed the OLAF or that institution the period of time set by the Office or 
the institution, given the complexity of the case, to take appropriate action. The official shall 
be duly informed of that period of time within 60 days. 
2. The period referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply where the official can demonstrate that 
it is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. 
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to documents, deeds, reports, notes or information in 
any form whatsoever held for the purposes of, or created or disclosed to the official in the 
course of, proceedings in legal cases, whether pending or closed. 
EN 
11  
 
EN 


 
ANNEX 2: WHISTLEBLOWING REPORTING CHANNELS 
 
EN 
12  
 
EN 

Document Outline