Mon, Jul
49 New Articles

Whistleblowing in the Czech Republic

Whistleblowing in the Czech Republic

Czech Republic

Despite recommendations by international organizations, Czech legislation on whistleblowers is fragmentary and does not offer a complex legal regulation of the phenomenon, or even a definition of the term. The current protection of whistleblowers – i.e., employees or former employees of an organization who inform competent institutions of illegal or unethical practices in that organization – is only dealt with in the Czech Act on Banks, Act on Savings and Credit Co-operatives, Capital Market Undertakings Act, and Civil Service Act (or, more precisely, in the Government Decree implementing the Civil Service Act). Some vague protection of whistleblowers is also provided by the general provisions of the Labor Code and other regulations, which, however, do not specifically address the protection of whistleblowers as such. Currently, two acts are being discussed in the Czech Parliament aimed at providing higher labor-law protection of whistleblowers in both the private and public sectors.

The first draft, developed by the Minister for Human Rights on the basis of the Action Plan to Fight Corruption, was approved by the Government in February 2017 and has subsequently been forwarded to the Parliament. The basis for the new legal position, according to the draft, should be the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code, as the Minister for Human Rights does not deem it necessary to adopt a separate law on this matter. Pursuant to the draft, only those “whistleblowing” messages which are made in good faith and in respect of which the public interest in learning of the misconduct outweighs the harm suffered by the protected interests concerned (for example, the duties of loyalty or confidentiality) should be protected. The draft also transfers the burden of proof from the employee to the employer, which will in practice mean that an employer who dismisses an employee after the employee reports a misconduct must prove that the dismissal has been made lawfully.

An “alternative” draft of an act protecting whistleblowers coming from the workshop of the Minister of Finance was submitted to the Government in April 2016. This act would apply to workers in employment relationships and in civil service, professional soldiers, and members of other security forces. However, protection would be granted only to whistleblowers who have disclosed specific offenses (e.g., corruption-related crimes, rape, fraud), while reports of other criminal acts, administrative torts, and other illegal misconduct would not be protected. This apparently contradicts international recommendations and unjustifiably discriminates between disclosures of equally serious crimes by granting protection to only some and denying protection to others (while the selection of crimes seems to be random). The draft suggests that whistleblowers should be protected from the moment they make their disclosure. Whistleblowers would be allowed to contact the Prosecutor’s Office on an anonymous basis, through a dedicated website. Once the disclosure is assessed, the state prosecutor may offer protection to the person making it – i.e., may give him or her the status of a protected whistleblower – and the employee may then safely step out of anonymity. Once the employee obtains protected whistleblower status, the employer may not end his/her employment or service relationship, either by notice of termination or immediately, nor may the employer transfer the whistleblower to another job or position without the consent of the regional branch of the Labor Office. 

It should be noted that it is not clear at this point whether either of these two drafts will be given effect, nor what the final form of the adopted legislative measures will be.

Apart from the planned legislation in this matter, the Czech Constitutional Court has recently provided guidance on how to grasp this issue in two cases, issuing verdicts establishing that the principle of proportionality needs to be applied and that it is necessary to compare the public interest with employee loyalty. In the first case, there was a public interest in protecting the environment; the second case concerned the requirement of non-discriminatory treatment in employment relationships. In both of these verdicts, the necessity of employee loyalty prevailed over the public interest, as employees provided information not only to the competent public institutions, but also to other private subjects, and even to potential business partners. Therefore, the Constitutional Court denied the provision of protection to the employees, and rejected both complaints outright. It is, however, probable that decisions of the Constitutional Court would be different if the employees had not disseminated the information in the private sphere.

By Jaroslav Tajbr, Head of IP/IT, and Pavlina Hlavenkova, Associate, Noerr

This Article was originally published in Issue 4.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Czech Republic Knowledge Partner

For more than 25 years PRK Partners has been providing top tier, comprehensive legal services in all areas of law – always at the highest professional level. The company’s offices in Prague, Ostrava and Bratislava, as well as its specialised teams of legal practitioners and tax advisors, allow PRK Partners to offer solutions to any kind of legal issues, providing an international point of view and in-depth knowledge of the respective local legal system.

The full-service law firm has worked on many of the region’s largest and most complex transactions. The firm puts emphasis on the highest standards of quality, efficiency and flexibility in its advisory services, which are tailored to the specific requirements of each client. 

Our team is composed of professionals with international education and experience. The firm frequently works on a non-exclusive basis with leading international law firms on large cross-border transactions.

PRK Partners is consistently recognised among the top law firms by leading international and domestic directories and ratings agencies and has been honoured with numerous awards: 

• National Law Firm of the Year 2016 by the Chambers Europe Awards, the most prestigious international law firm competition. This is the fifth award PRK Partners has received since the awards were first given; National Law Firm of the Year 2014, 2013 and 2010 and Law Firm of the Year 2012 for Best Client Service.

• 2018 Best Law Firm of the Year in the category of Banking &Finance and the absolute winner in the main category of the Domestic Law Firm of the Year awards organised by epravo.cz under the auspices of the Czech Bar Association three times since the award's inception (in 2016, 2013 and 2011).

• a finalist of the Central European Law Firm of the Year category in The Lawyer European Awards 2018. 

The firm has a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility and pro bono work.

PRK Partners is the exclusive member firm in the Czech Republic for Lex Mundi, the world’s leading network of independent law firms, with in-depth experience in 100+ countries worldwide. In addition, the firm is a member of Celia Alliance, AFI (Association for Foreign Investment) and CVCA (the Czech Private Equity and Venture Capital Association).

Firm's website: www.prkpartners.com

Our Latest Issue