Recital 62
Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law · UE 2019/1937
| (62) | In other cases, the use of internal channels cannot reasonably be expected to function properly. This is most notably the case where reporting persons have valid reasons to believe that they would suffer retaliation in connection with the reporting, including as a result of a breach of confidentiality, or that competent authorities would be better placed to take effective action to address the breach. Competent authorities would be better placed, for example, where the ultimate responsibility holder within the work-related context is involved in the breach, or there is a risk that the breach or related evidence could be concealed or destroyed; or, more generally, the effectiveness of investigative actions by competent authorities might otherwise be jeopardised, such as in the case of reported cartel arrangements and other breaches of competition rules; or the breach requires urgent action, for instance to safeguard the health and safety of persons or to protect the environment. In all cases, persons reporting externally to the competent authorities and, where relevant, to institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union should be protected. This Directive should also grant protection where Union or national law requires the reporting persons to report to the competent national authorities, for instance as part of their job duties and responsibilities or because the breach is a criminal offence. |
In Luxembourg, the Law of 16 May 2023 explicitly enshrines the whistleblower's free choice between internal and external channels, with no hierarchy or prior obligation to use the internal one. The Office des rapports de signalement (OFRS) is the transversal external authority, but direct reporting to CSSF (finance), CNPD (data), ITM (labour), CAA (insurance) or ILR (telecom) remains available depending on the area. Any employer attempt to blame the employee for not having used the internal channel first is treated as an indicator of retaliation, criminally sanctioned from EUR 1,250 to EUR 25,000 (doubled in case of recidivism).
Luxgap practice: document in writing, within your whistleblowing policy, the free choice of channel and the list of competent external authorities by breach type. This is enforceable by the OFRS during an inspection.