Speaker
Dr Stelios Andreadakis, Senior Lecturer in Corporate and Financial Law, Brunel University London
Dr Dimitrios Kafteranis, Assistant Professor in Law, Centre for Financial and Corporate Integrity, Coventry University
Abstract
The Luxleaks scandal had made headlines back in 2014, implicating A. Deltour and R. Halet. Deltour was granted the status of the whistle-blower by the ECtHR as a defense for the criminal acts he committed, whereas Halet was condemned as he was not recognized as a whistle-blower. Halet brought his case before the ECtHR alleging that his right to freedom of expression was violated. The ECtHR Chamber judgment, Halet v Luxembourg, was published almost one year ago, and the case is currently pending before the ECtHR Grand Chamber. The judgment focused on two criteria for protecting whistle-blowers under the freedom of expression provision: the damage done to the employer and whether it could be outweighed by public interest, and the sanction imposed. The ECtHR found that there was no violation of the right to freedom of expression.
The purpose of this contribution is to critically assess the Luxleaks case and the Halet Chamber judgement of the ECtHR. As it will be argued, the judgment is significant for bringing a new angle on the concept of damage and of the public interest in relation to the Court’s established case law on the protection of whistle-blowers. It will be argued that the ECtHR created new criteria which impose a heavy burden on whistle-blowers and has disregarded the EU Directive on the protection of whistle-blowers. heavy burden on whistle-blowers and has disregarded the EU Directive on the protection of whistle-blowers. By the time this abstract is written, the Halet case was pleaded before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR and its decision is expected.
Registration
Please click here to register.