Activities of Francis ZAMMIT DIMECH related to 2018/0106(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law (debate) MT
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law
Amendments (11)
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) Persons need specific legal protection where they acquire the information they report through their work- related activities and therefore run the risk of work-related retaliation (for instance, for breaching the duty of confidentiality or loyalty). The underlying reason for providing them with protection is their position of economic vulnerability vis-à- vis the person on whom they de facto depend for work. When there is no such work-related power imbalance (for instance in the case of ordinary complainants or citizen bystanders) there is no need for protection against retaliation.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32 a (new)
Recital 32 a (new)
(32a) Potential whistleblowers should seek wherever possible to inform internal reporting systems or agencies but wherever they deem that such course of action will be inadequate, they should be free to decide that the public should be informed directly, for example through the media. Whistleblowers should be protected no matter what their choice of reporting channel is.
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) Persons intending to report should be able to make an informed decision on whether, how and when to report. Competent authorities should therefore publicly disclose and make easily accessible information about the available reporting channels with competent authorities, about the applicable procedures and about the dedicated staff members within these authorities. All information regarding reports should be transparent, easily understandable and reliable in order to promote and not deter reporting. Potential whistleblowers should always be able to decide themselves whether to use internal or external reporting channels or whether they directly reach out to the public, provided that whistleblowers should in their discretion determine before resorting to external channels whether internal reporting mechanisms would be effective enough to provide a remedy against the breach that would be the subject of their report.
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 62
Recital 62
(62) As aWithout prejudice to the other provisions of this Directive, as a general rule, reporting persons should first use the internal channels at their disposal and report to their employer. However, it may be the case that internal channels do not exist (in case of entities which are not under an obligation to establish such channels by virtue of this Directive or applicable national law) or that their use is not mandatory (which may be the case for persons who are not in an employment relationship), or that they were used but did not function properly (for instance the report was not dealt with diligently or within a reasonable timeframe, or no action was taken to address the breach of law despite the positive results of the enquiry).
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) This Directive shall also apply to European Union staff members, as defined within the EU Staff Regulation;
Amendment 215 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6 – point d a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 6 – point d a (new)
(da) European Union institutions, agencies and bodies;
Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States are also to ensure that persons requiring protection as whistleblowers will be entitled to the right of appeal before independent and impartial Courts of Justice wherever such persons are denied recognition or protection as whistleblowers by the relevant authority that would be tasked with the recognition or grant of status to a person requesting to be considered as a whistleblower, and that under no circumstances can the authority tasked to grant such status or protection have an actual or potential conflict of interest with regard to whether or not to grant such status or protection.
Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b a (new)
(ba) a person making a report or a disclosure anonymously and who subsequently has been identified shall qualify for protection as laid down in this directive under the same conditions as a person who identified oneself when making a report or a disclosure;
Amendment 442 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point d
d) he or she could not reasonably be expected to use internal reporting channels in light of the subject-matter ofwhere the reporting persons have valid reasons to believe they would be the victims of retaliation due to the report;
Amendment 460 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b – point i (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b – point i (new)
i) in cases where reporting persons have valid reasons to believe that there is collusion between the perpetrator of the breach and the competent authority is reasonably suspected, or that evidence may be concealed or destroyed;
Amendment 461 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b – point ii (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – point b – point ii (new)
ii) he or she acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds to believe the information reported was true at the time or reporting even if the judicial authorities subsequently decided the report did not concern a threat or serious harm to the public interest.