Confidentiality is a legal right — and a core expectation in any organization. But there are moments when disclosure is justified, therefore it should be protected. These cases make this very clear:
- Halet v. Luxembourg (LuxLeaks) — Large financial documents about tax arrangements were shared with journalists. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the public interest outweighed confidentiality.
- Heinisch v. Germany — A nurse exposed shortcomings in a nursing home and was fired. The European Court of Human Rights found that her rights under the Human Rights Convention had been violated.
- T 793/22, TU v Parliament (European Parliament case) — An assistant to an MEP reported harassment and financial irregularities. The General Court of the EU ruled that the institution had to provide adequate protection against retaliation.
Whistleblowing History
The term “whistleblowing” comes from the English phrase “to blow the whistle” — literally meaning “to blow a whistle.” In a sports context, a referee blows the whistle to stop the game when a foul occurs. In the 20th century, this metaphor began to be applied to people who report violations of law or ethics within an organization.
The first known cases of modern whistleblowing are linked to government and military structures in the United States during the 20th century. For example:
- Kenneth Straud (1960s) — reported corruption in the financial operations of the U.S. Department of Defense.
- Rachel Carson (more of an environmental activist than a classic whistleblower) — in 1962, through her book Silent Spring, she effectively “exposed” the harm caused by pesticides, which also became an example of early influential whistleblowing.
Since the 1970s, the concept has acquired official recognition: governments began passing laws to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, as they often risk their careers, reputations, and even freedom to reveal the truth.
Nevertheless, it is important to understand the concept of “certain circumstances”, and not end up breaking any law.
Legal Limits
Now let’s talk about the real-world limits. And yes, even if you’ve seen too many action movies, in real life, there are rules you must follow.
First, unauthorized access: If you get information illegally — by hacking, stealing files, or bypassing security — your protection disappears. No law is going to cover you for breaking other laws while trying to blow the whistle.
Second, scope of disclosure: Only share what’s necessary to show the wrongdoing. If you go overboard and release unrelated information, your legal shield can vanish. For example, you copy an entire company database when you only need a few files to prove misconduct — courts won’t protect you there.
Third, disclosure channels: Giving sensitive information straight to the press without following legal procedures is risky. Even if you think the public needs to know, the law expects you to follow proper reporting channels first.
Fourth, contractual restrictions: NDAs and employment contracts can limit disclosure. However public policy and specific whistleblower laws can sometimes override these restrictions.
If you do not violate any of these, it is worth noting that your rights and protections will apply. Let’s talk about this in more detail.
Rights
We all want people who witness wrongdoing to report it, don’t we? Illegal, unethical, or dangerous actions — if someone is aware of them, they should speak up. But not everyone does, even when they have the right to. Most people fear facing retaliation.
To be protected, a whistleblower also needs the right to confidentiality: Many laws guarantee that the whistleblower’s identity will remain confidential when reporting to the appropriate authorities.
There is also the right to legal remedies: If a whistleblower experiences retaliation (for example, being fired, demoted, or harassed), they can seek compensation or reinstatement through the special courts or administrative bodies.
Protections
Whistleblowers are more likely to be safe when they follow the proper channels. Reporting to designated authorities, like government agencies, internal compliance officers, or inspectors general, helps ensure legal protection.
There are also statutory safeguards: Federal and state laws (for example, the Whistleblower Protection Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and EU directives) can provide immunity from civil and criminal liability in specific situations.
Finally, the public interest principle matters: Courts may protect disclosures that serve a significant public interest, even when some confidential information is involved.
Bottom Line
Protected whistleblowing has limits, and the legal and civil consequences depend on what information is disclosed, how it is obtained, and to whom it is revealed.
In other words, not all whistleblowing activity is automatically protected by law.
Protection depends on:
- Type of information (life-critical, national security, trade secrets).
- How it was obtained (with or without authorization).
- Scope of disclosure (only what is necessary for evidence or a large-scale release).
- To whom it is disclosed (internal channels, government agencies, press).
- Existence of NDAs or contractual restrictions.
It is always advisable to consult a lawyer before disclosing information to ensure you remain within legal protections.
We provide these services to anyone interested.
