Analysis of Judgment No. 9138 of 2024: Whistleblowing and Limits to the Protection of the Whistleblower

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, No. 9138 of April 5, 2024, offers significant insights on the topic of whistleblowing and the protection of informants. In this article, we will break down the main elements of the ruling, clarifying the legal and practical implications for workers and organizations involved.

The Regulatory Context of Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing, or the reporting of illegal activities by public or private employees, is primarily governed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001 and Law No. 179 of 2017. These regulations aim to protect whistleblowers from potential retaliation while ensuring transparency and integrity in public administration.

  • Article 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 165/2001: establishes the procedures for reporting illegal activities.
  • Article 3 of Law No. 179/2017: defines the rights of whistleblowers and the protection procedures.

The Case Subject to the Ruling

In this specific case, a worker had filed a complaint with the National Anti-Corruption Authority, exposing facts covered by corporate secrecy. However, later on, they anonymously communicated the details of the complaint to a media outlet. The Court found that such behavior exceeded the established procedures for the protection of the whistleblower, thus excluding the right to protection.

Reporting under Article 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001 ratione temporis applicable (so-called "whistleblowing") - Complaint filed with the National Anti-Corruption Authority - Its anonymous communication to media outlets - Procedures exceeding the purpose of eliminating the unlawful act - Configurability of the case under Article 3, paragraph 3, Law No. 179 of 2017, ratione temporis applicable - Concrete balancing with the right to freedom of expression and criticism - Right to protection of the whistleblower - Exclusion - Case. In terms of reporting unlawful conduct under Article 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001 (ratione temporis applicable), the anonymous communication to media outlets of the complaint filed with the National Anti-Corruption Authority regarding facts covered by corporate, professional, or official secrecy falls within the express provision of Article 3, paragraph 3, of Law No. 179 of 2017 (ratione temporis applicable), such that their disclosure in ways exceeding the purpose of eliminating the unlawful act excludes the right to protection of the whistleblower according to a balancing of interests to be made concretely with the right to freedom of expression and criticism. (In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of merit that affirmed the validity of the disciplinary charge against a worker for having made available to a journalist the contents of a complaint, filed as a whistleblower with the National Anti-Corruption Authority, of facts covered by corporate secrecy, whose disclosure was found to have occurred outside the communication channel specifically set up for the purpose of eliminating the unlawful act subject to reporting).

Conclusions

Judgment No. 9138 of 2024 underscores the importance of adhering to official reporting channels to ensure the protection of whistleblowers. Where the conduct of the whistleblower exceeds the procedures provided by law, such as in communications to media outlets, there is a risk of compromising not only their own protection but also the credibility of the reports themselves. It is essential for workers to be aware of these limits to safeguard their rights and effectively contribute to the fight against corruption and illegal activities.

Bianucci Law Firm