26 Amendments of Jana TOOM related to 2018/0106(COD)
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) In the context of internal reporting, the quality and transparency of information provided on the follow up procedure to the report is crucial to build trust in the effectiveness of the overall system of whistleblower protection and reduces the likelihood of further unnecessary reports or public disclosures. The reporting person should be informed within a reasonable timeframe about the action envisaged or taken as follow up to the report (for instance, closure based on lack of sufficient evidence or other grounds, launch of an internal enquiry and possibly its findings and/or measures taken to address the issue raised, referral to a competent authority for further investigation) as far as such information would not prejudice the enquiry or investigation or affect the rights of the concerned person. Such reasonable timeframe should not exceed in total threewo months. Where the appropriate follow up is still being determined, the reporting person should be informed about this and about any further feedback he/she should expect.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) Follow up and feedback should take place within a reasonable timeframe; this is warranted by the need to promptly address the problem that may be the subject of the report, as well as to avoid unnecessary public disclosures. Such timeframe should not exceed threewo months, but could be extended to sixfour months, where necessary due to the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the nature and complexity of the subject of the report, which may require a lengthy investigation.
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 85 a (new)
Recital 85 a (new)
(85a) This Directive is a new standard for protecting the rights of persons reporting on breaches of Union law and should serve as an example for the candidate countries, associated countries and other countries that have committed to bring their legislation closer to the European acquis, especially in the context of reporting on abuse of EU funding and EU macro-financial assistance provided to these countries.
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) persons having the status of worker, with the meaning of Article 45 TFEU as well as former workers;
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘public disclosure’ means making information on breaches acquired within the work-related context available to the public domain;
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘retaliation’ means any threatened or actual act or omission prompted by the internal or external reporting or a public disclosure which occurs in a work-related context and causes or may cause unjustified detriment to the reporting person;
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding threewo months following the report, to provide feedback to the reporting person about the follow-up to the report;
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) written reports in electronic or paper format and/or oral report through recorded telephone lines, whether recorded or unrecorded;
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) give feedback to the reporting person about the follow-up of the report within a reasonable timeframe not exceeding threewo months or sixfour months in duly justified cases;
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) oral report through recorded telephone lines, whether recorded or unrecorded;
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding threewo months or sixfour months in duly justified cases, for giving feed-back to the reporting person about the follow-up of the report and the type and content of this feed-back;
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i
(i) the phone numbers, indicating whetherthat conversations are recorded or unrecorded when using those phone lines;
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) In the context of internal reporting, the quality and transparency of information provided on the follow up procedure to the report is crucial to build trust in the effectiveness of the overall system of whistleblower protection and reduces the likelihood of further unnecessary reports or public disclosures. The reporting person should be informed within a reasonable timeframe about the action envisaged or taken as follow up to the report (for instance, closure based on lack of sufficient evidence or other grounds, launch of an internal enquiry and possibly its findings and/or measures taken to address the issue raised, referral to a competent authority for further investigation) as far as such information would not prejudice the enquiry or investigation or affect the rights of the concerned person. Such reasonable timeframe should not exceed in total threewo months. Where the appropriate follow up is still being determined, the reporting person should be informed about this and about any further feedback he/she should expect.
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) Follow up and feedback should take place within a reasonable timeframe; this is warranted by the need to promptly address the problem that may be the subject of the report, as well as to avoid unnecessary public disclosures. Such timeframe should not exceed threewo months, but could be extended to sixfour months, where necessary due to the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the nature and complexity of the subject of the report, which may require a lengthy investigation.
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 85 a (new)
Recital 85 a (new)
(85a) This Directive is a new standard for protecting the rights of persons reporting on breaches of Union law and should serve as an example for the candidate countries, associated countries and other countries that have committed to bring their legislation closer to the European acquis, especially in the context of reporting on abuse of EU funding and EU macro-financial assistance provided to these countries.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) persons having the status of worker, with the meaning of Article 45 TFEU as well as former workers;
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) ‘public disclosure’ means making information on breaches acquired within the work-related context available to the public domain;
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘retaliation’ means any threatened or actual act or omission prompted by the internal or external reporting or a public disclosure which occurs in a work-related context and causes or may cause unjustified detriment to the reporting person;
Amendment 223 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding threewo months following the report, to provide feedback to the reporting person about the follow-up to the report;
Amendment 226 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) written reports in electronic or paper format and/or oral report through recorded telephone lines, whether recorded or unrecorded;
Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) give feedback to the reporting person about the follow-up of the report within a reasonable timeframe not exceeding threewo months or sixfour months in duly justified cases;
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) oral report through recorded telephone lines, whether recorded or unrecorded;
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding threewo months or sixfour months in duly justified cases, for giving feed-back to the reporting person about the follow-up of the report and the type and content of this feed-back;
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i
(i) the phone numbers, indicating whetherthat conversations are recorded or unrecorded when using those phone lines;
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4