Vojtěch Hanzal
Full Text of Paper
- Source Type: Journal
- Document Type: Study
- Document Language: English
- Published on: 30. 9. 2023
- File Format: PDF
- File Size: 628 kB
In: Societas et iurisprudentia • 2023 • Volume 11 • Issue 3 • Pages 56-69 • ISSN 1339-5467
Abstract: The decision in the case of Halet v. Luxembourg can be considered quite crucial in the field of whistleblowing, as it significantly redefines the conditions and procedure for granting protection to whistleblowers within the meaning of the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while expanding the range of cases where protection can be granted. However, the consequence of this decision is also a significant reduction of predictability, for both the whistleblowers themselves as well as for the persons whose conduct is reported. This paper aims to analyse the decision itself, to define its rudimentary argumentative elements and to discuss issues arising from the decision, as well as the possible effects that the decision may have on the application practice.
Key Words: European Law; European Convention on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights; Freedom of Expression; Whistleblowing; Case of Halet v. Luxembourg; LuxLeaks.
ORCID: 
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4927-7169
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31262/1339-5467/2023/11/3/56-69
URL: https://sei.iuridica.truni.sk/archive/2023/03/SEI-2023-03-Studies-Hanzal-Vojtech.pdf
Copyright © 2023 Vojtěch Hanzal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Bibliographic Citation
HANZAL, V. Discussion on the European Court of Human Rights’ Decision in the Case of Halet v. Luxembourg and Its Implications. Societas et iurisprudentia [online]. 2023, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 56-69 [cit. 2020-01-01]. ISSN 1339-5467. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31262/1339-5467/2023/11/3/56-69.
References
Act [of the Czech Republic] No. 171/2023 Coll., on the Protection of Whistleblowers.
Case of Bucur and Toma v. Romania [2013-01-08]. Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, 2013, Application No. 40238/02.
Case of Gawlik v. Liechtenstein [2021-05-31]. Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, 2021, Application No. 23922/19.
Case of Görmüş and Others v. Turkey [2016-01-19]. Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, 2016, Application No. 49085/07.
Case of Guja v. Moldova [2008-02-12]. Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, 2008, Application No. 14277/04.
Case of Halet v. Luxembourg [2023-02-14]. Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, 2023, Application No. 21884/18.
Case of Heinisch v. Germany [2011-07-21]. Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, 2011, Application No. 28274/08.
Case of Soares de Melo v. Portugal [2016-02-16]. Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, 2016, Application No. 72850/14.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [European Convention on Human Rights] [1950-11-04].
Decision of the District Court of Luxembourg Ref. No. ILDC 2580 (LU 2016) [2016-06-29].
DILLON, S. Tax Avoidance, Revenue Starvation and the Age of the Multinational Corporation. The International Lawyer [online]. 2017, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 275-327 [cit. 2023-08-14]. ISSN 2169-6578. Available at: https://scholar.smu.edu/til/vol50/iss2/4/.
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the Protection of Persons Who Report Breaches of Union Law. OJ EU L 305, 2019-11-26, pp. 17-56.