Kolikova: Voice-SD Amendment Leaves Key Problems in Whistleblower Bill

Bratislava, 5 December (TASR) – Although Voice-SD has submitted an amendment to the bill setting up a new office to replace the Whistleblowers Protection Office (UOO), problematic parts remain, MP Maria Kolikova (Freedom and Solidarity) warned on Friday. Voice-SD lawmakers have introduced a change intended to align the new legislation with an EU directive. Kolikova pointed out that the bill still aims to replace the UOO leadership, with its head to be selected by the House chair. She added that the amendment continues to allow a review of protection granted to whistleblowers who have already received protected status. She doesn't believe that the concerns raised by the European Commission have been resolved. "They didn't say a word about the reasons, only that it relates to the concerns of the European Commission. Many toxic elements have been removed from the bill, but as the bill is more or less toxic as a whole, much of it remains. There are still two key problems," said Kolikova at a press conference on Friday in response to the Voice-SD amendment. According to her, changing the UOO leadership goes against a key principle that the institution must be independent and trusted by whistleblowers. Freedom and Solidarity considers the proposal to be in conflict with European law. "The problem remains that it's possible to review the protection of whistleblowers who have already been granted protection status," said Kolikova of the second major issue. She argued that it isn't true that the amendment restores the previous wording of legislation governing UOO. The granting of protection may already be reviewed under current law, she said. The amendment was submitted by Voice-SD MP Richard Elias on Thursday (4 December). It aims to remove the condition that protection must be linked to "serious anti-social activity committed by a person with whom the whistleblower has or had an employment or similar relationship". It would also delete provisions allowing employers to "request a superior prosecutor to review the justification for continued protection granted within criminal proceedings, as well as request a superior administrative authority to review the justification for continued protection granted during administrative offence proceedings". MPs have been debating the bill for a second week via a fast-tracked legislative procedure. More than 40 speakers have registered in writing for the second-reading debate. Friday's session remains dedicated solely to this bill. mf/df