5 Amendments of Curzio MALTESE related to 2016/2224(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is of the opinion that since the effectiveness of the whistle-blowing environment is affected by cultural values, implementing an identical mechanism in all Member States may result in dysfunctional behaviour and needless costs, and that any measures taken should therefore be tailored to fit national contextTakes note that the Commission, in its EU Anti-Corruption report, stated that EU Member States have in place most of the necessary anti-corruption legal instruments and institutions, however, the results they deliver are not satisfactory across the EU and their capacity and efficiency should be improved; calls, therefore, on the Member States to enforce anti-corruption rules and, at the same time, to properly implement European and international standards and guidelines concerning whistle-blowers' protection in their national laws; insists that whistle-blowers play an essential role in helping Member States and EU institutions and bodies to deter and prevent any breaches of the principle of integrity and misuse of power that threaten public health and safety, financial integrity, human rights, the environment and the rule of law at European and national levels, and undermine the trust of citizens in democratic institutions and processes; notes that whistle-blowers often disclose scandals affecting several Member States; stresses, however, therefore that existing cultural differences do not detract from the need for legal protection of whistle-blowers in Member States;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. ReaffirmsObserves that, in the case of whistle-blowers, there is no bilateral conflict between the whistle-blower and the business or authority but polygonal differences of interests, including in some cases across national borders, and that, while efforts should be made to weigh up the entitlement of businesses or authorities to have information kept secret and to expect loyalty, what is at stake is the provision of information in the public interest; reaffirms therefore the need for public and private organisations in the Member States to establish internal and external whistle-blowing procedures for their employees, setting out clear confidential routes for making disclosures; considers that, in this context, the legislature should in advance provide a structure for selecting the whistle-blowing procedure, in order to guarantee comprehensive protection of freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the ECHR;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, owing to significant gaps in the protection of whistle-blowers against retaliation, the obligation to use internal reporting channels can be risky and act as a deterrent, restricting both freedom of expression and the public’s right to access information; stresses that internal reporting procedures shouldmust not act as a tool for prohibiting the act of informing the wider public of illegal activities and activities that severely harm the public interest; stresses that this must apply equally to the use of external whistle-blowing procedures and that accordingly, as laid down in Article 5 of ILO Convention 158 of 22 June 1982, the filing of a complaint, participation in proceedings against an employer or provision of information to a competent authority do not constitute valid reasons for termination of employment;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that whistle-blowing is linked toessential for freedom of the press and is essential in bringing to light illegal activities or activities which evidently severely harm the public interest; stresses that whistle-blowers are an important source of information for investigative journalism, and calls on the Member States to ensure that the right of journalists not to reveal a source’s identity is effectively protected and that authorities refrain from using surveillance in order to ascertain their sources.; observes in this context that the European Court of Human Rights has held, in its case-law, that protection of journalists' sources is not a privilege but a vital component of a free press.1a _________________ 1a European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 27.11.2007, 20477/05, Tillack v Belgium
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)