Gaspar Calls for New Rules on Protection of Whistleblowers

Bratislava, 26 November (TASR) – It's necessary to revise rules governing the protection of whistleblowers and a mechanism should be introduced to allow a review of whether protection is still justified over time, parliamentary vice-chair Tibor Gaspar (Smer-SD) declared on Wednesday during a debate on the proposal to transform the Office for the Protection of Whistleblowers (UOO) into another authority. Gaspar pointed out that investigations develop over time in relation to what a protected individual has reported. "Should a prosecutor refuse protection to an employee, the employee has the right to appeal. They may request that a superior prosecutor or the prosecution service review the refusal. There is an appeal mechanism. If the first-instance prosecutor erred when deciding on granting protection, a superior body may correct it. (...) However, the law does not allow a superior prosecutor to review, upon a motion or an appeal filed by the employer, the entire decision. What we are striving for is to ensure that the positions of employee and employer are made equal in this respect," he stated. In this context, Gaspar objected to the duration of protection in the case of investigators centered around Jan Curilla. He argued that the 2023 amendment, adopted when the current opposition was in government, had been purpose-built. He also criticised current UOO head Zuzana Dlugosova for not warning that the existing legislation was flawed. He believes that the office's leadership should also be replaced. Gaspar further criticised the parliamentary debate on the proposal, saying the opposition often dedicates most of its time not to discussing whether the office's powers should be adjusted, but to political manifestos. Parliament is currently debating at first reading a government proposal to transform the UOO into a new authority, in a fast-track legislative procedure. The opposition has lambasted the proposal, arguing that it will reduce the level of protection for whistleblowers and victims of crime. It also points to possible conflicts with European law and the Slovak Constitution. mf