Categories: Insights, Publications

Tag: dipendenti, Whistleblowing


9 Dec 2019

Whistleblowing, secure channels in companies with over 50 employees (Il Quotidiano del Lavoro de Il Sole 24 Ore, 9 December 2019 – Vittorio De Luca, Antonella Iacobellis)

On 26 November 2019, Directive of the European Parliament and Council no. 1937/0/201, dated 23 October 2019, concerning the protection of individuals who report breaches of EU law, therefore, concerning whistleblowing, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Of specific importance, the provisions of the Directive are revealed, which include: – the creation of secure reporting channels. In fact, it provides for the obligation of creating reporting channels within both public or private organisations with over 50 employees and within municipalities with over 10,000 inhabitants (Article 8); – a wide range of individuals protected by the Directive who are given the opportunity to make reports: (i) employees pursuant to Article 45, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, including civil servants; (ii) self-employed workers pursuant to Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; (iii) civil servants, shareholders and members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of a company (including non-executive directors); (iv) paid and unpaid volunteers and trainees; (v) any person who works under the supervision and management of contractors, subcontractors and suppliers; (vi) reporting persons, if they report or disclose information on breaches obtained in the context of an employment contract that has since terminated; (vii) reporting persons whose employment contract has not yet started in cases in which information concerning a breach has been obtained during the selection process or other stages of the pre-contractual negotiations (Article 4); – the support and protection measures 1) of facilitators, 2) of third parties associated with the whistleblower who could risk retaliation in a work context (e.g.: colleagues or relatives of the whistleblower), 3) of the legal entities pertaining to the whistleblower, for whom he works or with which he is otherwise associated in an employment (Article 4). It concerns individuals who could also be subject to so-called “indirect retaliation” which takes place, for example, by “cancelling the provision of services, blacklisting or boycotting”; – a hierarchy of reporting channels, prioritising and encouraging reporting via internal channels and then resorting to external channels, which the public authorities are required to set up (Articles 7 and 8); – the provision of a response deadline not exceeding 3 months of the report, a of the date of acknowledgement of receipt of the report, or, if no notification has been sent to the reporting person, three months as of the expiry of the seven-day deadline from the making of the report (Article 9); – the scope of application of the new EU rules on whistleblowing to protect informants who also reveal breaches a) in sectors such as that of public procurement, services, products and financial markets; b) in the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing; c) in product safety and compliance; d) in transport safety; e) in environmental protection; f) in nuclear radiation protection and safety; g) in food and animal feed safety and in the health and well-being of animals; h) in the protection of public health; – the reversal of the burden of proof on individuals who adopted damaging measures in judicial proceedings (Article 21); – exemption from liability due to the disclosure of information for the whistleblower (Article 21). The purposes expressly provided for by the Directive are to guarantee effective protection of: – “informants” and, therefore, the categories of individuals who “although not dependent on their work activities from an economic point of view, still risk being subject to retaliation for having reported breaches. The forms of retaliation against paid or unpaid volunteers and trainees include: no longer using their services, giving them negative job references, otherwise damaging their reputation or career prospects”; – “facilitators, work colleagues or relatives of the reporting person who are under an employment contract with the reporting person’s employer or a customer of the latter or a recipient of the services of the latter”; – trade union representative or labour representatives if (i) they personally make a report as employees; (ii) they provide the whistleblower with advice and support.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…