Argomento: Whistleblowing
Sezione:
(…) The case concerns alleged violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention in relation to insult and defamation proceedings brought against him after he had reported alleged corrupt activities by his former colleague in private correspondence with the latter’s hierarchy (…). On an unspecified date the company published an announcement entitled “Let’s Fight Together Against Corruption” on its website, under the section “Fight Against Corruption”, calling on anyone with information about corrupt practices at the company, including any actions which had caused or could cause pecuniary damage, to report such information using the dedicated email address. (…) On 26 March 2012 the applicant sent an unsigned report from his private email address to the dedicated email address in the announcement. (…) On 11 July 2012 the Head of Economic Security and Administration of Internal Security Directorate of the company, Y.M., held a meeting with the applicant and showed him the report, asking him whether he had written it. After the applicant confirmed that he had, Y.M. asked him to sign a copy of it, which the applicant did (…) On 16 August 2012 V.B. brought proceedings against the applicant for insult and defamation, seeking an apology and compensation. (…) On 3 March 2015, during the second round of the proceedings, the Regional Court partly allowed V.B.’s claim. It held that the applicant’s report constituted a public statement within the meaning of Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code. In particular, he had submitted his report five months after the termination of his contract and, by submitting his report to Y.M., he had made his statements in public, that is, to a person other than the defamer and the defamed. In addition, a committee had been set up to verify his submissions and its members had also become aware of the content of the report. Therefore, the applicant had shared his report with one “third person”, Y.M. and had thus failed to take adequate measures to ensure the confidentiality of the information so that it did not become available to others. It also did not admit in evidence the company’s online announcement because it had been submitted as a screenshot copy. (…) On 25 March 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal, alleging a violation of Article 10 of the Convention [continua ..]

» Per l'intero contenuto effettuare il login inizio