Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest

In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a dete...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Kostić Jelena Ž. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch ; Kroatisch ; srp

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	whistleblowers public interest private sector european court of human rights

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Strani pravni život - Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020, (2022), 2, Seite 205-220
Übergeordnetes Werk:	year:2022 ; number:2 ; pages:205-220

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ084512040

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ084512040
003	DE-627
005	20230311030400.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ084512040
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng \|a hrv \|a srp
050		0	\|a K520-5582
100	0		\|a Kostić Jelena Ž. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector.
650		4	\|a whistleblowers
650		4	\|a public interest
650		4	\|a private sector
650		4	\|a european court of human rights
653		0	\|a Law of Europe
653		0	\|a KJ-KKZ
653		0	\|a Comparative law. International uniform law
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Strani pravni život \|d Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020 \|g (2022), 2, Seite 205-220 \|w (DE-627)821520679 \|w (DE-600)2816018-6 \|x 26201127 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g year:2022 \|g number:2 \|g pages:205-220
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_184
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_374
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2863
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4035
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4326
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4753
951			\|a AR
952			\|j 2022 \|e 2 \|h 205-220

Indexfelder

author_variant	k j ž kjž
matchkey_str	article:26201127:2022----::rtcinfhslboesewepbiad
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	K
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ doi (DE-627)DOAJ084512040 (DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng hrv srp K520-5582 Kostić Jelena Ž. verfasserin aut Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector. whistleblowers public interest private sector european court of human rights Law of Europe KJ-KKZ Comparative law. International uniform law In Strani pravni život Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020 (2022), 2, Seite 205-220 (DE-627)821520679 (DE-600)2816018-6 26201127 nnns year:2022 number:2 pages:205-220 https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 kostenfrei https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 2022 2 205-220
spelling	10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ doi (DE-627)DOAJ084512040 (DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng hrv srp K520-5582 Kostić Jelena Ž. verfasserin aut Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector. whistleblowers public interest private sector european court of human rights Law of Europe KJ-KKZ Comparative law. International uniform law In Strani pravni život Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020 (2022), 2, Seite 205-220 (DE-627)821520679 (DE-600)2816018-6 26201127 nnns year:2022 number:2 pages:205-220 https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 kostenfrei https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 2022 2 205-220
allfields_unstemmed	10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ doi (DE-627)DOAJ084512040 (DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng hrv srp K520-5582 Kostić Jelena Ž. verfasserin aut Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector. whistleblowers public interest private sector european court of human rights Law of Europe KJ-KKZ Comparative law. International uniform law In Strani pravni život Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020 (2022), 2, Seite 205-220 (DE-627)821520679 (DE-600)2816018-6 26201127 nnns year:2022 number:2 pages:205-220 https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 kostenfrei https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 2022 2 205-220
allfieldsGer	10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ doi (DE-627)DOAJ084512040 (DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng hrv srp K520-5582 Kostić Jelena Ž. verfasserin aut Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector. whistleblowers public interest private sector european court of human rights Law of Europe KJ-KKZ Comparative law. International uniform law In Strani pravni život Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020 (2022), 2, Seite 205-220 (DE-627)821520679 (DE-600)2816018-6 26201127 nnns year:2022 number:2 pages:205-220 https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 kostenfrei https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 2022 2 205-220
allfieldsSound	10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ doi (DE-627)DOAJ084512040 (DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng hrv srp K520-5582 Kostić Jelena Ž. verfasserin aut Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector. whistleblowers public interest private sector european court of human rights Law of Europe KJ-KKZ Comparative law. International uniform law In Strani pravni život Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020 (2022), 2, Seite 205-220 (DE-627)821520679 (DE-600)2816018-6 26201127 nnns year:2022 number:2 pages:205-220 https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 kostenfrei https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753 AR 2022 2 205-220
language	English
source	In Strani pravni život (2022), 2, Seite 205-220 year:2022 number:2 pages:205-220
sourceStr	In Strani pravni život (2022), 2, Seite 205-220 year:2022 number:2 pages:205-220
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	whistleblowers public interest private sector european court of human rights Law of Europe KJ-KKZ Comparative law. International uniform law
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Strani pravni život
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Kostić Jelena Ž. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	821520679
id	DOAJ084512040
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ084512040</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230311030400.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ084512040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">hrv</subfield><subfield code="a">srp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K520-5582</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kostić Jelena Ž.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">whistleblowers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">public interest</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">private sector</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">european court of human rights</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Law of Europe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">KJ-KKZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative law. International uniform law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Strani pravni život</subfield><subfield code="d">Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020</subfield><subfield code="g">(2022), 2, Seite 205-220</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)821520679</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2816018-6</subfield><subfield code="x">26201127</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:205-220</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_184</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_374</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2863</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4753</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">205-220</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	K - Law
author	Kostić Jelena Ž.
spellingShingle	Kostić Jelena Ž. misc K520-5582 misc whistleblowers misc public interest misc private sector misc european court of human rights misc Law of Europe misc KJ-KKZ misc Comparative law. International uniform law Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest
authorStr	Kostić Jelena Ž.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)821520679
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	K520-5582
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	26201127
topic_title	K520-5582 Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest whistleblowers public interest private sector european court of human rights
topic	misc K520-5582 misc whistleblowers misc public interest misc private sector misc european court of human rights misc Law of Europe misc KJ-KKZ misc Comparative law. International uniform law
topic_unstemmed	misc K520-5582 misc whistleblowers misc public interest misc private sector misc european court of human rights misc Law of Europe misc KJ-KKZ misc Comparative law. International uniform law
topic_browse	misc K520-5582 misc whistleblowers misc public interest misc private sector misc european court of human rights misc Law of Europe misc KJ-KKZ misc Comparative law. International uniform law
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Strani pravni život
hierarchy_parent_id	821520679
hierarchy_top_title	Strani pravni život
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)821520679 (DE-600)2816018-6
title	Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ084512040 (DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63
title_full	Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest
author_sort	Kostić Jelena Ž.
journal	Strani pravni život
journalStr	Strani pravni život
callnumber-first-code	K
lang_code	eng hrv srp
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	205
author_browse	Kostić Jelena Ž.
class	K520-5582
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Kostić Jelena Ž.
doi_str_mv	10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ
title_sort	protection of whistleblowers: between public and private interest
callnumber	K520-5582
title_auth	Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest
abstract	In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector.
abstractGer	In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector.
abstract_unstemmed	In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 GBV_ILN_4753
container_issue	2
title_short	Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest
url	https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63 https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138 https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127
remote_bool	true
ppnlink	821520679
callnumber-subject	K - General Law
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ
callnumber-a	K520-5582
up_date	2024-07-03T23:23:05.719Z
_version_	1803602085257674752
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ084512040</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230311030400.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ084512040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">hrv</subfield><subfield code="a">srp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K520-5582</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kostić Jelena Ž.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, which sets a precedent in terms of protecting whistleblowers. Given the position of the Grand Chamber, it seems that the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in this case may have a deterrent effect on potential whistleblowers, especially those employed in multinational companies and corporations. At the level of the European Union in 2019, the Directive on the Protection of Persons Reporting Violations of European Union Rights was adopted, which was to be implemented in national legislation by the end of 2021. However, the question arises as to whether existing European standards contain sufficiently effective mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers in all sectors or whether a higher level of protection can be provided at the national level. In an attempt to answer this question, we will first analyze the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg, then we will point out the provisions of Guja v. Moldova taken into account in passing the above judgment, and then we will look back to the judgment of Heinisch v. Germany, which also had an influence in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg. In order to point out the unjustified expectations of whistleblowers to balance between the protection of public and private interests of any person, we point out the complexity of the content of the concept of public interest, and then analyze European standards in the field of whistleblower protection. The aim of the application of the mentioned methodology is to try to give recommendations for the improvement of the existing system of protection of whistleblowers, which seems to be very necessary in the private sector.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">whistleblowers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">public interest</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">private sector</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">european court of human rights</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Law of Europe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">KJ-KKZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative law. International uniform law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Strani pravni život</subfield><subfield code="d">Institute of Comparative Law, Belgrade, 2020</subfield><subfield code="g">(2022), 2, Seite 205-220</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)821520679</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2816018-6</subfield><subfield code="x">26201127</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:205-220</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.56461/SPZ_22202KJ</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/893e6b4dda8c496f858b453243b54b63</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0039-2138/2022/0039-21382202205K.pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0039-2138</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2620-1127</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_184</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_374</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2863</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4753</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">205-220</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.39933

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Protection of whistleblowers: Between public and private interest

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?