Providing an Alternative to Silence:
Towards Greater Protection and Support for
Whistleblowers in the EU
COUNTRY REPORT: CZECH REPUBLIC
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
link to page 1 link to page 3 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Legislation Pertaining to Whistleblowing and Whistleblower Protection ....................... 5
Whistleblowers protection in Czech law ............................................................................................................. 5
Administrative Procedure Code ......................................................................................................................... 5
Labour Code ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Labour Inspectorates .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Civil Code and Anti-Discrimination Act ........................................................................................................... 7
Ombudsman ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Criminal Law .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Potential whistleblowing obstacles ....................................................................................................................... 8
Perception and Political Will ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Public Awareness about Whistleblowing .................................................................................................... 10
Media Coverage of Whistleblowing and Interaction between the Media and Whistleblowers
....................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Use of existing channels in the Czech Republic ......................................................................................... 12
Reporting channels within the public sector ............................................................................................. 13
TI CZ Legal Advice Centre .................................................................................................................................. 14
Tools employed in the private sector ............................................................................................................ 14
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Introduction
The aim of the presented research is to provide a concise overview of existing Czech laws and
current practices pertaining to whistleblower protection in the public and private sector. The
analysis is divided into four parts. The first part offers a brief introduction to the issue. The
second part provides a summary of existing Czech laws that may pertain to whistleblower
protection, and discusses their practical application. Here we also look at the social and
cultural context of the issue and on possible obstacles. In the third part, perception of
whistleblowing and political will in the Czech Republic is analysed from the perspective of
aspects generally addressed in foreign legislation pertaining to whistleblower protection. We
conclude by offering a number of recommendations ensuing from the analysis.
The term whistleblowing derives from the English saying “
to blow the whistle”. This word is
meant to evoke the whistleblower’s attempt to say “Attention, there’s something wrong here”.
We speak of whistleblowing when current or former members of an organisation (employees)
warn of unfair practices in the workplace, generally of practices endangering the public and
running counter to the public interest. Whistleblowers are key individuals in the process of
uncovering corruption, fraud or organised crime. As such they are highly vulnerable and may
be subject to various forms of reprisal or retaliation.
Despite larger media coverage in recent years, whistleblowing remains a relatively unfamiliar
topic in the Czech Republic outside the journalist/publicist group, and most people do not
perceive whistleblowers as a group that needs special protection. Political will to enact (and
enforce) adequate laws that would protect whistleblowers against various dangers they are
facing is also lacking; current administration declared a war on corruption, but after three
years, almost the sole progress is an analysis of whistleblowing and protection measures,
which draws heavily upon TI CZ materials. Moreover, proposed legislation does not pay heed
to recommendations contained in the analysis.
Fear of possible retaliation, combined with insufficient legal protection, sense of futility and
history-based public disdain of ‘snitches’ means that although whistleblowers can be a very
potent force in resolving unfair or illegal practices in both public and private sectors, a lot of
potential whistleblowers choose to remain silent.
Overview of Legislation Pertaining to Whistleblowing and
Whistleblower Protection
Vladan Brož, August 2012
No comprehensive legislation exists in the Czech Republic to regulate whistleblowing and
whistleblower protection, although integrating whistleblower protection measures into Anti-
Discrimination Act is currently in progress. The rules primarily applied in this area are the
labour-law regulations and Witness Protection Act, but the protection these afford is uncertain
and strictly limited to matters of employment (labour law) or criminal proceedings (Witness
Protection Act). They fail to address explicit protection of those employees who call attention
on the unfair or illegal employer practices.
For the sake of clarity, we have structured the assessment of whistleblower protection in the
Czech Republic into two sub-chapters: (1) which laws apply to whistleblowing and
whistleblowing protection and how, (2) legal obstacles to whistleblowing that exist. None of
these sub-chapters comprises a full enumeration of measures, institutions or options, but only
offers a basic overview.
WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION IN CZECH LAW
Administrative Procedure Code
Most generally, where not otherwise stipulated by a special law (thus, in the vast majority of
cases), the procedure for lodging a complaint or a motion is regulated in Act No. 500/2004
Coll., The Administrative Procedure Code. Pursuant to the provision of § 42, every
administrative body is obliged to accept motions to initiate proceedings ex officio. Where the
individual submitting the motion so requests, the administrative body is obliged within 30
days of to notify him/her that a proceeding has begun or that it ascertained no grounds for
initiating a proceeding ex officio or that it has submitted the motion to the competent
administrative body.
The lodging of a motion or complaint should not be prejudicial to the complainant and no
direct or indirect actions may be taken against him/her for having lodged a motion. The
complainant is protected in these specific administrative proceedings as a person affected, e.g.
he/she has the option of seeking compensation of damage, has the right to lodge a motion
anonymously or to have his/her identity protected. Nonetheless, this protection fails to address
any specific consequences of the whistleblower’s actions on his/her employment situation, its
duration or the conditions for performing work. Thus, from the perspective of whistleblower
protection, the legal definition is inadequate.
Labour Code
Generally, the key employee protection provision is the definition of grounds for dismissal set
forth in § 52 of Act No. 262/2006 Coll., The Labour Code (the “LC”). An employer may not
arbitrarily and groundlessly terminate an employee. Further employee protection is afforded
by the provision restricting changes in work location or type. Certain protection is also
afforded by the provision authorising an employee to disregard an employer’s instructions,
where these are illegal (a similar treatment is in place for staff of territorial self-governing
bodies). Refusal to follow such instructions cannot be understood as a breach of a work
obligation and cannot establish an employer’s right to terminate an employee.
The LC also stipulates a general employer obligation to ensure the fair treatment of all
employees and explicitly prohibits discrimination of any kind whatsoever.
Pursuant to the provision of § 305 of the LC, additional employee rights may be regulated by
an organisation’s internal rules of procedure. Nothing prevents an organisation from
formulating internal regulations addressing whistleblowing mechanisms and other
whistleblower rights. Moreover, such protection may be stipulated and defined in collective
agreements, in which other employee rights in employment relations, inter alia, may be
regulated pursuant to the Labour Code.
Labour Inspectorates
Act No. 251/2005 Coll. on the labour inspection regulates, inter alia, other rights and
obligations existing during inspections carried out within labour inspectorate or labour office
powers. A whistleblower may contact labour inspectorates and labour offices with suspicions
of labour-law violations (discrimination included). The competent civil service agency is
obliged to look into a complaint, but is not obliged to accede to the whistleblower’s
suggestions or proposals, or even to perform an investigation. If an inspection is carried out at
the impetus of an employee, the inspector is obliged to conceal the identity of that employee,
but this protection doesn’t regulate the protection of whistleblowers who report wrongdoing,
especially the duration of the employee’s contract, and in practice the inspections are usually
carried out after the employee has been terminated.
Civil Code and Anti-Discrimination Act
Terms pertaining to discrimination are, on the basis of an explicit statutory mandate, defined
in what is known as the Anti-Discrimination Act, passed as an Act No. 198/2009 Coll.
Current Anti-Discrimination Act does not explicitly provide protection to whistleblowers who
alert on wrongdoing, but a new Act, which includes additional reporting mechanisms and
explicit whistleblower protection, is proposed. It should protect employees against dismissal,
bossing and other forms of retaliation, but protection for other whistleblowers will be still
missing, as it seems.
The right to equal treatment and protection against discrimination is generally provided by the
§ 13 and § 16 of the Labour Code, and should employment discrimination or unfair treatment
occur, the current legislation sets out the legal means of protecting personality in the
provisions of § 11 et seq. of the Civil Code.
Ombudsman
Pursuant to Act No. 349/1999 Coll. on the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman protects persons
against the conduct of authorities and other institutions (but not private employers) and may
perform independent investigations in individual cases. In his/her complaint, the
whistleblower may only seek protection of his/her personal rights and is required by law to
attach a signature to the complaint and furnish his/her address. The primary consequence of
anonymity would be deferral of the complaint. Nonetheless, an important right of the
Ombudsman is not to be bound by whistleblower complaints, but to be able to initiate an
investigation at his/her own discretion. However, the Ombudsman does not supersede the
activity of civil service agencies and cannot amend or reverse their decisions, but may only
request that remedies be effected. The protection of whistleblowers is only theoretical.
Criminal Law
From the perspective of criminal law, it is likely that a whistleblower lodging a complaint will
be in the position of a witness when reporting the facts comprising the basis for his/her
suspicion to the competent authority. Under the Act No. 40/2009 Coll. Criminal Code
provisions, a whistleblower / witness has certain statutory rights to identity protection and the
provision of safe and undisturbed surroundings designed to ensure that his/her testimony is
accurate and uninterrupted. However, the procedural rights of the witness are very narrow in
the Czech Criminal Code, i.e. not allowing the witness to view the case file or lodge
applications for remedial measures. Nor does the legislation explicitly provide for the witness
to receive a copy of the protocol documenting his/her own testimony.
A whistleblower may also become an aggrieved party who has suffered damage as a result of
the crime being reported and whose legal position affords him/her additional procedural
rights. He/she has the right to participate in criminal proceedings, to view the case file, to sue
for damages and to lodge certain applications for remedial measures. However, the Criminal
Code very narrowly defines the term
aggrieved party.
POTENTIAL WHISTLEBLOWING OBSTACLES
The Labour Code and some other legislative provisions together establish employee rights
and obligations that may be mutually incongruous. For example, a member of an organisation
(employee) may find that he/she has a reporting duty but, at the same, that in performing this
obligation he/she may be committing a criminal or other unlawful act.
Where an employee plausibly learns that an employer’s conduct answers to the facts (body) of
a crime, in some cases that employee – like any other citizen – has a legal obligation to report
the commission of such statutorily defined crime. Failing to do so may in itself constitute the
commission of a crime. The provision of § 367 of the Criminal Code (Act No. 40/2009 Coll.)
addresses the criminal act of failure to obstruct a crime, while the provision of § 368 treats on
the crime of failure to report a crime, which an employee may commit by mere virtue of
inactivity.
On the other hand, in making a complaint the whistleblower may himself/herself perpetrate a
crime or other unlawful act and thus be liable for damages based on the crimes of slander or
false accusation.
The crime of slander is defined as the illegal conduct of a person who disseminates false
information about another, which is capable of jeopardising his/her public reputation, in
particular through professional injury, the violation of family relationships or causing of other
serious detriment. The subject of the crime may only be an individual and it is enough for the
perpetrator to have been aware that the information is false. It may always be assumed that a
whistleblower is absolutely convinced of the truth of his/her assertions. Nonetheless, he/she
runs the risk of being subject to the lodging of a complaint accusing him/her of the crime of
slander as a retaliatory measure.
False accusation is also deemed a crime. It differs from slander in that from the
whistleblower’s perspective, it constitutes a deliberate reporting of facts that may form the
basis for criminal prosecution by the “accused”, i.e. the employer. The whistleblower’s
assertions might not be duly supported in the discovery process and the employer could
subsequently file a complaint for suspicion of the commission of the foregoing crimes as a
means of reprisal.
Perception and Political Will
Public Awareness about Whistleblowing
The public awareness about the notion of whistleblowing is regrettably low and the term
whistleblowing/whistleblower is virtually unknown to the Czech public. Although related
topics (e.g. fighting corruption and related crime in public sector) are widely discussed,
whistleblowing is still more or less ignored. In September 2009, a public opinion survey1 was
carried out among the employees in the Czech Republic and the results show that two thirds
of employees, who had observed serious misconduct in the workplace, failed to address the
situation or only discussed it with their colleagues. Further analysis of the responses reveals
that the employees who reacted passively, failed to address misconduct primarily due to their
fear of potential problems at work or because they did not believe that their disclosure would
lead to a resolution. Some 34% of these employees believe that management knew of such
conduct and did not wish to address it. The dilemmas that are common to every country, such
as fear of job loss, the degree of implication/co-responsibility, loyalty to employer vs. loyalty
to the public or other stakeholders, negative experiences with investigative, prosecuting and
adjudicating bodies (law enforcement and the courts), are also observable among the Czech
employees.
In addition, local historical experience plays an important role in the low willingness to report
illegal conduct. First, regimes and values have been subject to frequent change in the Czech
Republic and those who attempted to take up public causes were generally swept away at each
such change. The general rule of thumb is “don’t make enemies unnecessarily”. Second, all
totalitarian regimes in the past (and vast majority of adult population in Czech Republic lived
through at least one) have been using informants to maintain itself in the possession of power,
and everybody who is perceived as an informant may be despised because of that. For many
people it is hard to get rid of the subconscious feeling that anybody who reports anything
(often including white-collar crimes) to state authorities causes unnecessary trouble for
everybody concerned. The concept that in a democratic society whistleblowing can be a
1 Transparency International – Czech Republic (2009): Survey mapping the perception of whistleblowing
by employees in the Czech Republic
, www.transparency.cz
valuable tool for curbing crime, labour code violations and many other forms of illegal or
illegitimate behaviour can be hard to grasp.
Media Coverage of Whistleblowing and Interaction between the Media and Whistleblowers
A media analysis was performed in order to gain at least a partial picture of whistleblowing in
the Czech Republic. The media relationship to whistleblowers was tracked in two ways: (1)
the experiences that primarily investigative journalists themselves have had with
whistleblowers, and (2) how the media acknowledged and referred to whistleblowers in
2008.2
Virtually without exception, the English term
whistleblower was unknown to the contacted
journalists, who had no idea that special attention is devoted to them in other countries or that
their position is addressed in special legislation. On the other hand, their
sources, i.e. persons
who relay non-public and sensitive facts to them, are a vital component of the day-to-day
work of the investigative journalist. These persons can invoke the journalist’s right to protect
his/her sources. If these individuals are acting in the public interest, they are anonymous
whistleblowers. Inasmuch as the terms source and whistleblower overlap, an unclear picture
exists as to who in fact is, and is not, a whistleblower.
Reporters estimate that 70-90% of their sources insist on anonymity, and do so for serious
reasons such as fear of persecution, retaliatory measures and a lack of faith in investigative,
prosecuting and adjudicating bodies or other authorities. Generally, editors neither
recommend nor welcome anonymous sources, noting the danger of journalists being
manipulated by a whistleblower. However, they do as a rule respect anonymity if a politically
highly sensitive case is not involved.
Editors state they generally do not prevent the punishment of a non-anonymous
whistleblower, though they do provide other examples of how a journalist may help a
2 The analysis of journalists’ experience with whistleblowers is based on information provided in e-mail,
telephone and face-to-face interviews with editors working in Czech media. Media coverage of
whistleblowing was tracked using searches for identified cases or key words in the electronic media
archive of the company Newton Media. The search included 240 print and electronic titles, 5 national
television stations and 7 national radio stations. The ascertained statistical data only provide us with
approximate data, as some cases could involve duplication, where one case is covered by two mentions in
a single publication (on the title page and inside the publication) or when the same article is published in
both the print and online versions of a daily.
whistleblower, e.g. by lending enhanced credibility, offering better familiarity with the case,
collaborating with non-profit organisations or facilitating contact with an attorney.
Nowadays, media familiarity with whistleblowing is rising. A search for terms
“whistleblower” or “whistleblowing” yielded at least one article in most major news servers
in Czech republic (2 in Reflex, 4 in Czech Press Office (ČTK), 7 in Lidové noviny, 9 in
Hospodářské noviny, 10 in MF Dnes) and all articles were describing domestic situation,
whereas in 2007, a search for the term “whistleblower” identified a total of 3 articles (a total
of 39 since 1996), but with the exception of one case they all dealt with events abroad.
Cases of whistleblowing with favourable ending are increasing in number, too. Probably the
biggest and most famous whistleblowing affair is connected with the name of Libor Michálek,
former director of the State Environmental Fund, who blew the whistle on corruption at the
Ministry of Environment, fraudulent tendering processes and on instruction about destroying
documents that would implicate senior officials. Michálek at first attempted to initiate an
investigation through regular channels, but when Prime Minister repeatedly ignored all his
attempts, Michálek made the evidence public, eventually causing a resignation of the Minister
of Environment. Michálek lost his job and faced a smear campaign, but he also received a
remarkably wide support; now he is running for Senate, promising to fight corruption if he is
elected.
Use of existing channels in the Czech Republic
Potential whistleblowers have many options of the bodies to which they may turn with
complaints and notifications and each of them, as explained above, has different jurisdiction
and competencies. There is no dedicated body that would receive whistleblower’s reports
and/or that would investigate the case and be able to take corrective action. There are such
channels in the private sector, but the existence of such bodies relies only on the will of the
concrete private organization. The obligation to introduce internal whistleblowing
mechanisms applies only to those private entities that are also subject to Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
A whistleblower, as any other citizen, client of the public administration or employee may
turn on labour inspectorates and labour offices (the last available data from the State Labour
Inspection Office for 2010 indicate that 5,543 complaints were made in total and 3,714
inspections were performed), local authorities, municipal infractions commissions, Czech law
enforcement agencies, labour offices, the courts or police, the Ombudsman (A total of 6,985
complaints were submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman in 2011, and 5,200 complaints
were clarified. Moreover, 559 visitors to the Office were provided with legal advice on how to
resolve their problem), media or political representatives. From the statistics published by
competent agencies and institutions, we can arrive at figures providing the number of valid
decisions, but not detailed case information. In order to obtain specific information about the
case and whether it involved a whistleblower, it would be necessary to go through each
individual case. The absence of specific regulation and notion of whistleblowing causes that
such category/circumstance is not even recorded.
Reporting channels within the public sector
Government Resolution No. 270 of 2001 enjoined representatives of ministries and central
public administration agencies to issue and familiarise their staff with a Code of Ethics. The
resolution includes a model Code of Ethics introducing the reporting duty for an employee
who learns of a loss of property or fraudulent or corrupt behaviour. An employee is to report
suspicions to his/her superior or the competent investigative, prosecuting or adjudicating
body, but the Code usually does not regulate any specific process of reporting. The Code also
presents no special protective mechanisms for the persons who report suspicions (and could
be considered as an internal whistleblowers). In late 2006, Transparency International –
Czech Republic (TI CZ) conducted a survey of 26 central public administration agencies (all
ministries and other authorities). TI CZ ascertained, inter alia, whether the various authorities
had adopted a Code, if so, in what form and how staff were trained. All but two authorities
had adopted Codes of Ethics, generally by means of internal rules of procedure. Employees
are generally familiarised with the respective Code during intake training. The statistics of use
of the duty to report are not available. No internal reporting mechanism was found, with the
exception of anonymous telephone lines or e-mail addresses, but these do not provide
protection to whistleblowers and do not have specific procedures to deal with the
whistleblowers notice.
All in all, current state of whistleblower support can be described as shallow. Although war
on corruption is being widely declared, so-called government anti-corruption strategy
resembles a rough to-do list more than a detailed strategy. Government provides lesser
amount of money (around 5.5 million CZK in 2011, lowered to less than 4 million for 2012)
for anti-corruption activities (e.g. relevant non-profit organisations), but there is very little
control over this money’s destination. Analysis of whistleblowing and recommended legal
measures was made, but it mostly copies TI CZ materials and analysis from 2007.
Whistleblower protection legislation is currently proposed, but despite analysis strong
recommendation of stand-alone law, protection measures will be integrated in Anti-
Discrimination Act. Anti-corruption hotline was established in 2006, but when its results did
not meet expectation, it was abandoned without any replacement.
TI CZ Legal Advice Centre
TI CZ has been operating its Advocacy Legal Advice Centre (ALAC) since late 2005. Since
2005, 2 300 citizens have contacted TI CZ with requests for legal aid (824 in the year 2011
alone). Applicants in 240 cases were provided with extensive legal aid comprising long-term
assistance and support (preparation of the complaint for the client, submission of complaints
in the name of TI CZ, representation before government authorities). Among these cases of
extended legal aid, we can identify roughly 15% cases involving whistleblowers, with two
types of clients-whistleblowers. The first category involves witnesses to corruption who did
not know where to turn with potential complaints of inconsistencies or who lacked faith in the
standard mechanisms; they generally experienced no retaliatory measures. The second
category experienced some form of harassment or recourse for their warnings and sought
legal aid or direct attorney representation for their defence.
Tools employed in the private sector
The private sector uses anonymous complaint lines and other mechanisms, and whistleblower
protection may be addressed in internal rules of procedure. Two surveys conducted in 2007
and 2009 3 provide a snapshot of the situation in the private sector. According to these
3 PriceWaterhouseCoopers– Economic crime survey 2007 – available at
http://www.pwc.com/cz/en/hospodarska-kriminalita/index.jhtml (visited on 21 September 2009), Ernst
& Young – Economic fraud survey 2009 – available at http://www.ey.com/CZ/cs/Newsroom/News-
releases/2009_05_Evropsky_pruzkum_o_podvodech (visited on 21 May 2009).
surveys, whistleblowing policies are in place in 44% of surveyed companies and 16% of fraud
cases were uncovered thanks to whistleblowers. The companies operate mostly anonymous
information lines.
According to another survey executed in 2007 between the employees of multinational
companies in selected European countries, including the Czech Republic,4 the Czech
employees feel much less protected (42%) than for example employees in Great Britain
(86%). These results can indicate that the private companies in the Czech Republic do not
introduce effective internal whistleblowing mechanisms.
According to the surveys, the main reasons for failing to come forward is fear of retaliation
and reprisal (more than 67%).
4 Ernst & Young (2007) – Economic Fraud Survey 2007.
Conclusion
Whistleblowing as an effective way to expose illegal or illegitimate practices in both public
and private sectors is still in its infancy in Czech Republic. Although this situation is slowly
changing, as seen in the course of previous two or three years, whistleblowing is still a
phenomenon that interests only a limited number of people, mainly journalists and experts,
instead of being a widely discussed topic (like corruption or uneconomic state budget).
A popular debate developed only after the aforementioned case of Libor Michálek in year
2010. It became apparent that the public perception of whistleblowers is slowly but surely
changing; they are no longer automatically labeled as troublemakers, snitches or political
opportunists. The concept of honest man, who just wants to obtain justice, is gradually
becoming broadly accepted.
Two years later, the biggest weakness is indisputably represented by the lack of
comprehensive legislation. Unfortunately, whistleblowing is not usually perceived as a
context-independent issue; therefore, whistleblower is often seen only as an employee in need
of protection against groundless termination (amply provided by Labour Code), or as a
witness, adequately protected by Witness Protection Act. From these points of view,
additional legislation is considered redundant, or even improper. While current laws are not
entirely ineffective, patchwork protection afforded by Labour Code, Criminal Code and other
laws does not inspire confidence in potential whistleblowers and can give the impression that
relying on legislative protection is a game of chance.
The government, albeit fighting against corruption ostentatiously, originated only an analysis
for a future legislation, and for unknown reasons, the analysis is more or less ignored. The call
for a specific whistleblower protection law will be in all probability answered with an
adjusted version of the Anti-Discrimination Act5, providing no protection whatsoever for
whistleblowers outside the labour law.
5)
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/domaci/173131-zakon-o-whistleblowingu-neni-potreba-tvrdi-
pospisil/
On the other hand, a whistleblowing center is being considered as a component of a new anti-
corruption strategy for 2013-20146. If coupled with adequate legislation (e.g. inspired by laws
which are in effect in Great Britain7, Australia or Canada), it would allow Czech Republic to
finally advance among states that encourage whistleblowers and protect them effectively.
At this time, a fitting step forward would be to enact a specific whistleblower protection law,
which would define not only who is a whistleblower, but also his rights and obligations,
means of protection and perhaps even what is considered illegal or illegitimate practice,
subject to reporting8.
6
) http://zpravy.idnes.cz/protikorupcni-linky-ministerstev-nemaji-velky-efekt-pdh-
/domaci.aspx?c=A120806_132256_domaci_jj
3) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/23/contents Generally speaking, common law tends to be
friendlier to whistleblowers than continental law; however, the often used line of reasoning states that
common law institutes are not at all compatible with continental law. While straight adoption of common
law statutes is not usually possible, inspiration in the form of basic measures, means and experiences is
without doubt a valuable source of information for enacting functional whistleblower protection
legislation.
8) As recommended in publication TI – Czech Republic 2009.