Whistleblower protection is a crucial instrument in the fight against corruption and all other irregularities in our society. Therefore, the Whistleblower Protection Law (ZZPN) itself is an extremely important strategic document. Robert Ravenšćak, head of the Whistleblower Protection Center, tells me this.
His initial remark is that the consultation lasts only twenty days, under the pretext of the legislator that the implementation deadline is short (December 17, 2021). This is ridiculous and reminds one of a joke when Mujo was late to the toilet but actually did not leave on time. He emphasizes that the working group should have started working back in May and submitted the Draft for discussion no later than mid-September. This would have ensured the necessary time of 90 days for its revision and consultation within a reasonable timeframe. As it stands, the Draft Proposal for the law was released late and is full of deficiencies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities. Therefore, he had to spend seven full days (much more than he thought) analyzing all the shortcomings and proposing solutions, i.e., as he puts it, he did the job instead of the working group whose task it was.
No Revenge Should Be Allowed
He showed me the analysis and improvement proposals prepared by the Whistleblower Protection Center, and I suggest that the authors of the Draft definitely read them. The document is not long, it has 14 pages, with 26 recommendations on how to improve the ZZPN, and let’s add that the Center submitted as many as 88 proposals for public discussion. From the mentioned 26 recommendations in the document, we will mention only a few, as many as can fit in this column.
For example, although the ZZPN stipulates that the employer must not retaliate against the whistleblower, there are no legal barriers to retaliating against their spouse, which, says Ravenšćak, is unfortunately a common case and discourages potential whistleblowers, and this is one of the more significant shortcomings of the ZZPN. Therefore, the Center proposes that it be stipulated that the employer must not retaliate against a related person for reporting, as well as stipulating that any individual act or legal transaction by the employer through which the employer retaliates against a related person for reporting irregularities or public disclosure has no legal effect.
Another interesting proposal, in our opinion, arises from the summary that precedes the text of the Draft of the new ZZPN. It states: ‘The identity and confidentiality of the whistleblower will be protected, and they will be provided with adequate information and advice from a confidential person, the ombudsman, and through the system of free legal aid.’ The Center, however, proposes that this part be expanded to include the introduction of the whistleblower’s right to counseling and psychosocial assistance. But not only that, but also the introduction of a monetary reward and the establishment of a fund exclusively for the payment of rewards to whistleblowers. The same regulation should define in which cases the reward is paid and its amount.
