Providing an Alternative to Silence:
Towards Greater Protection and Support for
Whistleblowers in the EU
COUNTRY REPORT: ROMANIA
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
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 request 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
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
Report on Whistleblowing in Romania
1. Introduction
Transparency International defines whistleblowing as “the disclosure of information about
a perceived wrongdoing in an organization, or the risk thereof, to individuals or entities
believed to be able to effect action.”1 In Romania, Law no. 571/2004 defines
whistleblowing as “
the disclosure made in good faith of any offense involving a violation
of the law, of professional ethics and of the principles of good governance, efficiency,
effectiveness, economy and transparency.”2 Whistleblowers are those individuals that
make these types of disclosures, in good faith, in order to fight corruption, protect human
rights and ensure that the law is being upheld, oftentimes at great risk to themselves. As
such, they are an essential element of safeguarding the rule of law, as well as one of the
best weapons society has in the ongoing fight against corruption.
In many cases, whistleblowers are retaliated against because of their disclosures. The
retaliation ranges from harassment at the workplace (sexual or otherwise), demotion or
dismissal from their workplace, to facing criminal charges and sanctions and, in some
cases, even physical harm.
Romania was the first country in the continental legislative system to have a
comprehensive whistleblower protection act. Here, the legislation to protect
whistleblowers appeared as a result of an advocacy campaign initiated by Transparency
International Romania as part of a larger project meant to strengthen and improve
integrity in the public sector. As a result, the number of disclosures increased
significantly, as did the number of successfully resolved cases of corruption, now that
more people are encouraged to come forward and present crucial evidence of
1 TI (2012), “Recommended principles for whistleblowing legislation”, p.1,
http://www.transparency.org/files/content/activity/2009_PrinciplesForWhistleblowingLegislation_EN.pdf
2 Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities, public
institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law, amended and supplemented, art. 3,
letter a)
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
wrongdoing, evidence that would otherwise have been very difficult, if not outright
impossible, to gather.
In this country report, I set out analyze Romania’s legislation concerning whistleblowing
and whistleblower protection, particularly in regard to how accurately it respects and
applies the principles of whistleblowing (as developed by the Transparency International
Secretariat) and the standard disclosure procedures of Romania, the level of protection it
affords whistleblowers in the public sector, how effectively it is enforced by the proper
authorities, as well as what changes have been effected on it since it was passed. I also
chose and presented a case exemplifying the proper application of the law that shows
just how important it is for whistleblowing to be properly regulated and for whistleblowers
to benefit from strong legal protection from retaliation.
In essence, Romania’s Whistleblower Protection Act is very strong in theory, covering a
broad range of disclosure types and providing protection for whistleblowers, but suffers in
practice, as many public servants have little to no knowledge of it and public institutions
prove reluctant to apply its provisions. It is a law that benefits from a special statute,
giving it priority over general laws, which further increases its effectiveness.
The general perception of whistleblowers present in Romania is a slowly changing one.
Before the appearance of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, the general opinion was
that they were traitors and informants, Now, through the efforts made in promoting this
law, the situation is improving, albeit slowly. While there are more and more people who
have a good opinion of whistleblowers and even go as far as actively supporting them, it
will be a while longer before the common mentality will be completely changed.
2. A compilation, description and assessment
of WB protection laws
The stand-alone per se whistleblower protection act in Romania is Law no. 571/2004 on
the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities, public institutes and other
entities which signal violations of the law, amended and supplemented, also known as
the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. Its stated purpose is to protect the personnel of public
institutions that either forwarded a complaint or offered information regarding an act of
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
corruption within a public authority, a public institution, or any other kind of organization
belonging to the public sector.3
Law no. 571/2004 was conceived out of the necessity to regulate the integrity system of
the public sector and to have instruments in place that can protect public sector
employees from retaliation when faced with the repercussions of reporting an act of
corruption to the proper authorities.4 Unfortunately, this law does not apply to the private
sector, which means the employees from private companies have no legal protection
from it against retaliation if they decide to report acts of corruption within their workplace.
Private sector employees are thus much less likely to disclose acts of corruption
compared to the public sector employees that have the law on their side.
“Whistleblowing comes to “
lift the lid off the pot” and create an opening of the system
toward the public by defeating the “law of silence”. Most disciplinary rule sets provided
that if a civil servant had something to signal at the level of breaking the principles of
legality and/or of good administration then the only alternatives are the discipline
committee or the hierarchical superior or in the worst case the district attorney, any other
option being easily punishable as damages brought to the institution. Presently, these
provisions have been removed by establishing the special status of the Whistleblower’s
Protection Act as regards the Labor Code and Law no. 188/1999 regarding the Status of
public servants, as stated in art. 10 of the Act. Moreover, regarding public servants, Law
no. 50/2007, which amends Law no. 7/2004 regarding the public servants’ code of
conduct, expressly states that its provisions cannot be interpreted as a derogation from
the legal obligation of public servants to provide public information or to make complaints
based on Law no. 571/2004 regarding whistleblower protection.
The law itself creates the safety instrument for situations in which a public servant or
contractual employee intends to refuse the execution of an order he or she considers
illegal due to possible repercussions.
Another role of the law is that of creating the premises of defending the image of the
professional bodies of the public sector through the possibility of taking a stand.
Expressions such as “
everyone is the same” can only be avoided by separating the
cases of “
dalmatians” from inside the system and even determining their withdrawal or
exclusion.
3 Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities, public
institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law, amended and supplemented, art. 1
4 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”, p. 17-18
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
The whistleblower law completes in a natural way the rules system in this domain,
together with Law no. 682/2002 regarding witness protection, extending its provisions
outside the judiciary system and adapting their protection specifically to the public
administration.
Another effect of the law is that the obligation to act, based on the deontological and
disciplinary provisions that ask the public servant to react to the abuses he or she
observes, can no longer be avoided based on fear of reprisals. These are the first steps
toward the disciplinary sanction of complicity and concealment.5
Whistleblowing, when looked at from the point of view of the legal framework, can involve
the following types of activities:
acts of corruption, offenses assimilated to acts of corruption, offenses directly
related to acts of corruption, offenses of forgery and labor or labor-related
offenses;
offenses against the financial interests of the European Communities;
preferential or discriminatory practices or treatment in the exercise of the
attributes of the units provided by law;
violation of the provisions regarding incompatibilities and conflicts of interest;
misuse of material or human resources;
political partisanship in exercising the prerogatives of one’s function, except
for those elected or appointed politically;
violations of the law on access to information and transparency in decision-
making;
violations of the law on public contracts and grants;
incompetence or negligence at work;
biased evaluations in the processes of personnel recruitment, selection,
promotion, demotion and dismissal;
5 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”, p. 17-18
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
violations of administrative procedures and establishment of internal
procedures in violation of the law;
issuance of administrative or other type of documents serving group or client
interests;
faulty or fraudulent administration of public and private property for public
authorities, public institutions and other units provided by law;
violation of other statutory provisions requiring compliance with the principle
of sound administration and the protection of public interest.6
Law no. 571/2004 is for the protection of persons who claimed or disclosed violations of
the law within public authorities, public institutions and other units, committed by persons
occupying leadership or execution positions in the public authorities and institutions of the
central public administration, the local public administration, the Parliamentary working
body, the Presidential Administration working body, the Government working body, the
autonomous administrative authorities, the public cultural, education, health and social
care institutions, the national companies, the national and local autonomous
administrative bodies, as well as the state-owned companies.7 This protection, as well as
whistleblower status, applies to “public servants, who are persons invested, through
being named in a public function from the structure of a public institution or authority, with
prerogatives in achieving their competences, in a public power regime, with the purpose
of fulfil ing a public interest“8, and “contractual personnel according to the Labor Code.
For this personnel category the study level has no importance. They can be the manager
of a deconcentrated institution – the School Inspectorate, as well as a cashier or a cook
from the social cafeteria.”9 It also applies to personnel who unfolds their activity based on
special statutes, such as medics, professors, policemen, priests etc.10 Note that it does
not cover magistrates, whom the Whistleblower’s Protection Act does not apply to.11
6 Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities, public
institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law, amended and supplemented, art. 5
7 Idem, art. 1
8 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”, p. 30
9 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”, p. 30-31
10 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”, p. 31
11 Transparency International Romania, “National Integrity System”, 2011, p. 214
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
In Romania there is no special entity in charge of dealing only with whistleblowers and
their disclosures and complaints. Whistleblowing disclosures are made to either to one’s
hierarchical superior, to an internal integrity department or disciplinary committee, to the
manager of the institution the whistleblower is employed by and where the wrongdoing
occurred, or straight to the police, to the district attorney’s office or another authority that
is competent to solve such cases, and even to parliamentary commissions, professional,
patronal and syndical associations, NGO’s and even to the media.12 Should the
whistleblower face repercussions or legal action from his employer because of the
disclosure he or she made, his subsequent legal complaint is processed within the
common legal system, just like all other legal complaints.
If the whistleblower’s complaint is made against one’s hierarchical superior or against
someone who has control, inspection and evaluation responsibilities regarding the
whistleblower, “
the discipline commission or another similar organism must insure the
whistleblower’s protection, through hiding his or her identity.”13 If the case is serious
enough for the whistleblower to need to enter the Witness Protection Program, he falls
under the provisions of Law No. 682/2002 regarding witness protection. According to it,
the whistleblower’s personal information is protected if the object of their disclosure is
one of the following: corruption offenses, offenses assimilated to corruption offenses
directly related to corruption offenses, offenses of forgery and work related offenses, as
well as offenses against the financial interests of the European Communities.14
In addition, if the person making a disclosure does so against his or her hierarchical
superior, his or her identity is protected in order to avoid future retaliation and harassment
in the workplace.
In the public system, disclosures can be made to the following entities: the wrongdoer’s
hierarchical superior, the manager of the public entity the wrongdoer is part of or in which
wrongdoing is detected even if the one responsible is not identified yet, disciplinary
commissions or other similar entities from within the public entity that the wrongdoer is
part of, the country’s judicial bodies, the legal bodies tasked with investigating - among
other things - conflicts of interest and incompatibilities, as well as parliamentary
commissions, more specifically the Chamber of Deputies’ Research Commission for
Abuse, Corruption and Petitions and the Senate’s Research Commission for Abuse,
12 Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities, public
institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law, amended and supplemented, art. 6
13 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”, p. 47
14 Law No. 682/2002 regarding witness protection, art. 2, letter h)
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
Corruption and Petitions. In the non-governmental and private system, disclosures can
be made to professional, employers’ and syndical associations, to NGO’s and to the
media.15
Law no. 571/2004 can be interpreted in corroboration with art. 13 of Law no. 544/2001
regarding access to public information, which states that information which encourages or
hides violations of the law by public institutions or authorities cannot be considered to be
classified information. More than that, Law no. 50/2007, which amends Law no. 7/2004
regarding the public servants’ code of conduct, states that its provisions cannot be
interpreted as a derogation from the legal obligation of public servants to provide public
information or to make complaints based on the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. Taking
this into account, when we talk about a breach of law regarding classified information, the
provisions of Law no. 571/2004 have priority.
According to Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public
authorities, public institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law, amended
and supplemented, the remedy available to whistleblowers in Romania is the annulment
of the disciplinary action taken against them by their employer, provided said disciplinary
action is proven to have been motivated by their disclosure and not by another of the
whistleblower’s actions.16
The whistleblowers are generally kept informed about whether or not their disclosure was
accepted and about the start of an investigation into the matter and its estimated
duration. Further involvement consists of taking part in the legal proceedings, submitting
relevant documents and even appealing against the verdict in a national court of law
while the committee in charge of reviewing the case works.
Should whistleblowers be retaliated against, or at least suspect that he or she has
suffered repercussions in some form, their case will be reviewed by an impartial
independent entity that will decide whether this is indeed the case.
By law, whistleblowers are protected from disciplinary or administrative sanctions
received as consequence of the disclosure they made. If a disclosure or a complaint is
made in good faith, but proves to be unfounded, the whistleblower in question is not
15 Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities, public
institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law, amended and supplemented, art. 6
16 Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities, public
institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law, amended and supplemented, art. 9
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
punishable. If he or she is sanctioned, the provisions of the law apply just as in cases
where the disclosure proved to have a basis in reality.17
One of the advantages of this law is that if a whistleblower is disciplined after filing a
complaint and there is reason to suspect that the sanction was given in order to punish
him or her for their disclosure, the burden of proving the reasoning behind the sanction is
the responsibility of the employer. While both the whistleblower and his employer benefit
from being presumed to have acted in good faith when they made their disclosure or
given their sanction, respectively, the difference between the two situations is that the
employer must prove that he was right when he sanctioned the whistleblower, while the
whistleblower does not need to prove his claim of corruption, that burden falling onto the
authorities he made his disclosure to.18
When it comes to whistleblowers being retaliated against for their disclosures, the law is
pretty explicit. By law, if it is proven in court that a whistleblower was sanctioned in order
to punish him or her because of a disclosure he or she made, the sanction is canceled,
but the one that imposed said sanction does not suffer any consequences for his act.19
3. Perceptions and political will
In Romania, whistleblowers are sometimes seen as informants, a term that has a slew of
negative connotations attached to it following the activities of the Secret Police’s
informants during the Communist regime. They are generally viewed with very little trust
by the general public. This situation has greatly improved over the last decade, largely
owing to the appearance of the Whistleblower’s Protection Act and to the efforts done to
promote it. However, we still have a long way to go in order for whistleblowing to be seen
in a positive light by everybody.
In the political scene, a great deal of lip service is paid to the benefits of supporting
anticorruption efforts. However, there is a distinct gap between theory and practice in this
area. While most politicians are publicly in favor of supporting whistleblowing, the actual
17 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”, p. 28
18 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”
19 Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities, public
institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law, amended and supplemented, art. 9
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
practice of the law leaves a lot to be desired, as politicians lack the will to protect
whistleblowers, oftentimes citing lack of sufficient funds or outright ignoring the issue. The
civil society, on the other hand, has worked tirelessly to promote and raise awareness
about whistleblowing, including several advocacy campaigns on the subject, one of which
had as a result the making and passing of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act.
The term used to designate whistleblowing in Romania is “
avertizare de integritate”,
which translates into “
integrity warning”. Whistleblowers are called “
avertizori de
integritate”, which translates into “
those who give integrity warnings”. The term is meant
to have largely positive connotations, in an attempt to change the view some people have
of whistleblowers by painting them as guardians of integrity rather than informants, as
they are occasionally seen.
Despite the still largely unfriendly environment whistleblowers have to contend with, there
have been numerous cases where the law concerning whistleblowing was applied
correctly. One such case, for example, concerns a labor dispute.
Citizen D.A. submitted a disclosure concerning violations of the law, the Code of Conduct
and of other juridical norms in the public institution – the Technical Office for Medical
Devices of the Public Health Ministry – where he works as an engineer diplomat in the
field of engineering and quality management. D.A. disclosed that the appointment of the
manager of the office was fraudulent, as said manager, at the time of this appointing in a
position of public manager, did not have the minimum specialty studies necessary,
having instead a specialty in mining, which was contradictory to the position’s
requirements. The fraudulent appointment was committed by falsifying the
announcement and electing himself by signing his own appointment in the position in his
quality as intermediary manager. Moreover, the disclosure hinted at other possible acts of
corruption, as wel as offences against the EU’s financial interests, biased or
discriminatory practices or behaviors in fulfilling his role as manager, and abusive use of
the patrimonial resources available by not accounting for fixed resources.
Following the disclosure, the manager proceeded to retaliate against D.A., through
successive punitive sanctions, culminating in termination and application of discriminatory
treatments through the use of threats, blackmail and even violation of correspondence. In
light of this, D.A. applied to Transparency International Romania and was issued a
whistleblower certificate, which was used in court when his case was analyzed. Following
the trial, all sanctions were lifted and he was reinstated in his previous position.20
20 The whistleblower’s website, http://www.avertizori.ro/practici.html
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
4. Strengths, weaknesses and recommendations
In 2005, Transparency International Romania released the “National Corruption Report
2005”, in which an analysis of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act is made. As it was
released soon after the law had been passed, a full analysis of its effect could not be
made at the time, so a brief analysis of its provisions was made instead.21 The 2008 and
2009 versions of the same report revealed that the potential beneficiaries of Law no.
571/2004 are not aware of it, mostly due to the lack of harmonization between the public
institutions’ and authorities’ internal order regulations and the provisions of the law.22
Transparency International Romania’s “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions
regarding whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public
administration”, released in 2008, has confirmed the unfamiliarity of the potential
beneficiaries with Law no. 571/2004, which is mainly explained by the lack of
harmonization between the public institutions’ and authorities’ internal order regulations
and its provisions, since this harmonization represents the main channel for raising
awareness among the public sector employees concerning whistleblowers’ rights and
protection measures. The law has not been translated uniformly from theory to practice,
and its provisions cannot be found in the provisions of the internal rules of the public
institutions in question. Also, the public institutions that don’t update their rule sets to
match the provisions of Law no. 571/2004 are not sanctioned for this, which explains why
they aren’t in any rush to do it. In strong connection with this shortcoming, we notice de
quasi-inexistence of whistleblowing or of the intent to use the provisions of Law
571/2004, along with a deformed understanding of the legal norms by the public sector
personnel, as protecting the lack of solidarity towards the institution where the
whistleblower works and to his/her colleagues.23
Another review of the implementation of legislation on whistleblowers was made in the
National Integrity System 2011 research and study. The main conclusion was,
21 Transparency International Romania, “National Corruption Report 2005”, 2005, p. 5-6
22 Transparency International Romania, “National Corruption Report 2008”, 2008, p. 67 and
Transparency International Romania, “National Corruption Report 2009”, 2009, p. 9
23 Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions regarding
whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public administration”, p. 99 -
103
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
essentially, that while the law is very good in theory, it has loopholes when it comes to
implementation.
Thus, within the current legislation which regulates whistleblowing, we can identify the
following main shortcomings:
a) The lack of internal whistle blowing policies within the public institutions and
authorities, which they are obligated by law to have. While the law states that
these must exist, public institutions and authorities have proven reluctant to put it
in practice.
b) The lack of legal provisions to cover whistleblowing in the private sector.
c) The public is faced with a lack of information regarding the number of
whistleblowing cases reported and that of the sanctions or benefits, if any,
received by public institutions and authorities as a result of whistleblowing
In order to compensate for these deficiencies, we recommend the following actions:
1. The creation of specific telephonic hotlines dedicated to whistle blowers.
2. The training of both public and private institutions’ personnel regarding the
benefits and implications of whistle blowing.
3. The monitoring of the whistleblowing cases.
4. A single and comprising legal framework for the protection of whistleblowers in
the private sector. In order to do this, an evaluation of the possibilities of
extending the legal mechanisms and the whistleblower protection norms in the
private sector must be made. For this, it is necessary to have a detailed study in
order to identify the best ethical corporatist practices, including an evaluation of
the most vulnerable sectors regarding the risk of corruption. However, this does
not mean that the law regarding whistleblower protection in the public sector
should simply be extended to say that it also applies to the private sector, as that
would be unfeasible.
5. The initiation of specific actions towards the informing and promoting of the
provisions of the law among employees, focusing on the following aspects:
definitions, the reporting procedure, the responsibilities of the actors involved in
the process of filing a complaint, as well as what whistleblowers’ protection
consists of and what the institutional guarantees are.
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
5. References and sources
1. The whistleblower’s website –
www.avertizori.ro
2. “The Alternative to Silence: Whistleblower Protection in 10 States” -
http://www.avertizori.ro/MATERIALE/Alternativa.pdf
3. “Corruption affects us all” -
http://www.avertizori.ro/MATERIALE/Leaflet.pdf
4. Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel belonging to public authorities,
public institutes and other entities which signal violations of the law;
5. Transparency International Romania, “Whistleblowing: Implementing provisions
regarding whistleblower protection. Monitoring report at the level of the local public
administration”
6. Transparency International Romania, “National Integrity System”, 2011
7. Transparency International Romania, “National Corruption Report 2005”, 2005
8. Transparency International Romania, “National Corruption Report 2008”, 2008
9. Transparency International Romania, “National Corruption Report 2008”, 2008
10. Romania’s Penal Code;
11. Law no. 7/2004 on the Code of Conduct for Civil Servants;
12. Law no. 50/2007 amending and supplementing Law no. 7/2004 on the Code of
Conduct for Civil Servants;
13. Law no. 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning corruption;
14. Law no. 161/2003 on measures to ensure transparency in the exercise of public
dignities, public functions and the business environment, and on the prevention and
punishment of corruption;
15. Law no. 477/2004 on the Code of Conduct for the contractual staff of public
authorities and institutions;
16. Law no. 682/2002 on witness protection.
Bd. Nicolae Bălcescu nr. 21
etaj 2, sector 1, cod 010044
Bucureşti, ROMANIA
tel.: +4021 317 71 70
fax: +4021 317 71 72
xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
www.transparency.org.ro
6. Charts
Complete title of law or regulation: Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of the personnel of public
authorities, public institutions and other units who report violations of the law
Yes No
Partial
Notes
Broad definition of
X
whistleblowing
Broad definition of
X
whistleblower
Broad definition of retribution
X
protection
Internal reporting mechanism
X
External reporting
X
mechanism
Whistleblower participation
X
Rewards
X
system
Protection of confidentiality
X
Anonymous reports accepted
X
No sanctions for misguided
X
reporting
Whistleblower complaints
X
authority
Genuine day
X
in court
Full range of remedies
X
Penalties for retaliation
X
Involvement of multiple
X
actors