93 415 22 44 | 91 310 30 08

  • ES
  • CA
  • EN

           
logologo
  • Firm
  • Team
  • Criminal defence
  • Compliance
  • Internal investigations
  • Penal Link
  • News
  • Contact
logologo
           
  • Firm
  • Team
  • Criminal defence
  • Compliance
  • Internal investigations
  • Penal Link
  • News
  • Contact
logologo
           
  • Firm
  • Team
  • Criminal defence
  • Compliance
  • Internal investigations
  • Penal Link
  • News
  • Contact
logologo
  • Firm
  • Team
  • Criminal defence
  • Compliance
  • Internal investigations
  • Penal Link
  • News
  • Contact
logologo
           
  • Firm
  • Team
  • Criminal defence
  • Compliance
  • Internal investigations
  • Penal Link
  • News
  • Contact
logologo
           
  • Firm
  • Team
  • Criminal defence
  • Compliance
  • Internal investigations
  • Penal Link
  • News
  • Contact
  • Firm
  • Team
  • Criminal defence
  • Compliance
  • Internal investigations
  • Penal Link
  • News
  • Contact
by Molins
Internal Investigations, News23 February, 20230 comments

Brief summary of the ECHR (Grand Chamber) Judgement on the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, on February 14th, 2023

Just a week before the publication in Spain of Act 2/2023 of February 20th, 2023, regulating the protection of persons who report regulatory infringements and of fight against corruption, transposing Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and Council of 23rd October 2019, better known as the Whistleblowing Directive, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled the Halet v. Luxembourg Judgement, reaffirming the criteria applied in Guja v. Moldova Judgment and becoming a new benchmark in the field of Whistleblowing.

The Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights has issued Judgment of the case Halet v. Luxembourg on February 14th, 2023 in which it concerns the balance between the right of the freedom of expression stated in article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (from now on, ECHR), and the statutory and legal duties of professional secrecy in a business context.

Regarding the facts of the case, a former employee of PricewaterhouseCoopers (from now on, PwC), A.D, transmitted confidential tax information of PwC to the journalist E.P, information which was eventually published by various media outlets including a television program shown in 2013.

The applicant was dismissed by PwC and convicted in criminal proceedings, since the state of Luxembourg did not grant him the defense of whistle-blower status. The national Courts denied violation of Article 10 ECHR, because the disclosure to the media of confidential PwC documents was considered to be of insufficient public interest to counterbalance the harm caused to the company.

However, in its Sentence of February 14th, the Grand Chamber in Strasbourg noted an interference with the applicant’s exercise of his right to freedom of expression, for the reasons that will be briefly set forth below.

Firstly, the general principles established in the Court’s case law have been inspired by the Guja v. Moldova Judgment, which identified for the first time the relevant criteria to follow when assessing wether divulging confidential information on a workplace could be covered by the protection of Article 10 ECHR. According to this case-law, the protection enjoyed by whistle-blowers needs to take into account the duties of loyalty, reserve and discretion, which are inherent in subordinate relationships and statutory duty of secrecy, among others.

On the other hand, with regard to the protection of whistle-blowers, the Court defines six cumulative criteria that have to be accomplished in order to consider the divulgation of corporate confidential information as justified: (1) The channels used to make the disclosure. In this regard, the internal hierarchical channel is, in principle, the best mean, (2) The authenticity of the disclosed information, (3) Good faith when filling the complaint, (4) Public interest of the disclosed information, (5) Balance between the detriment to the employer and the public interest in the disclosed information, and (6) Severity and proportionality of the sanction imposed to the whistle-blower.

By virtue of the foregoing, in the Halet v. Luxembourg resolution the Grand Chamber of the ECHR stated that the national Court of Appeal had failed to take sufficient account to the specific features of the case and considered that the harm caused to PwC did not outweigh the general interest, since it undeniably contributed to provide fresh insight and an important debate of tax avoidance, tax exemption and tax evasion at a national and European level. Therefore, the Court stated violation of article 10 ECHR concerning the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and freedom to impart information. The decision has five dissenting opinions.

Tags:
ECHR
Share
New law requiring companies to have an Ethical ChannelPrev
Criminal liability of legal persons in AfricaNext

Latest Posts

by Molins

Criminal liability of legal persons in the United States and Canada

#ComplianceKeys15 We close the #ComplianceKeys series on the state of regulation of the criminal liability of legal persons in different countries with...

Criminal liability of legal persons in the United States and Canada

Compliance, News14 March, 2023
Share
by Molins

Criminal liability of legal persons in Africa

#Compliancekeys14 In this week's #ComplianceKeys14, the second to last article on this subject, we will briefly analyse the regulation of the criminal...

Criminal liability of legal persons in Africa

Compliance, News28 February, 2023
Share

Categorías

  • Appearance at MMCC
  • Compliance
  • Internal Investigations
  • Legislative Novelty
  • News
  • Opinion article
logo

Molins Defensa Penal
is a Criminal Law boutique firm
exclusively dedicated.

Barcelona

Avda. Diagonal, 399 Planta 1

08008 Barcelona

Tel. +34 934 152 244

Fax. +34 934 160 693

Madrid

José Abascal, 56 Planta 6

28003 Madrid

Tel. +34 91 310 30 08

Fax. +34 91 391 51 58

© 2021 Molins Defensa Penal. Todos los derechos reservados.
  • Aviso legal
  • Política de privacidad
  • Política de cookies
© 2019 Molins Defensa Penal. Tots els drets reservats.
  • Avís legal
  • Política de privacitat
  • Política de cookies
© 2019 Molins Defensa Penal. All rights reserved.
  • Legal notice
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies policy

We use our own cookies and third-party cookies to improve our services by analysing your browsing habits.

You can accept cookies by clicking on the «Accept» button or configure them or reject their use by clicking on Cookies policy.

  • ES
  • CA
  • EN
Logotipo Molins Defensa Penal
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Resume

This website uses cookies so that we can offer you the best possible user experience. The information of the cookies is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website or helping our team understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. Read the full Cookies Policy.

Consult the left side menu to decide which cookies you allow us to install.

Cookies strictly necessary

The strictly necessary cookies must always be activated so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

Si desactivas esta cookie no podremos guardar tus preferencias. Esto significa que cada vez que visites esta web tendrás que activar o desactivar las cookies de nuevo.

Statistics

We use our own and third party cookies to improve our services by analyzing your browsing habits.

You can accept cookies by clicking the "I accept" button or configure them or reject their use by clicking on the Cookies Policy.

¡Por favor, activa primero las cookies estrictamente necesarias para que podamos guardar tus preferencias!