Chance of the calendar or not, a week after the hearing before the French deputies of the whistleblower Frances Haugen, who unveiled internal documents accusing Facebook of putting “its profits before security”, the deputies of the Assembly national government are preparing to debate from Wednesday a bill to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers. This text must transpose into French law the European directive of 2019, aimed at harmonizing the status of whistleblowers in the EU.
The Modem deputy of Bas-Rhin Sylvain Waserman, bearer of this text, wants to go further by proposing an “ambitious” and “unprecedented” law before the next French presidency of the Council of the European Union, on January 1st. Among the flagship measures that he intends to put to the vote, and which could represent a real step forward, figure in particular the assumption of the legal costs of the whistleblower to face the “procedures-gags” (by the company or the company). administration targeted by a leaked documents), as well as criminal penalties, up to three years in prison, for companies that retaliate against a whistleblower.
A financial support fund?
Another big measure, eagerly awaited by NGOs and unions, could however go by the wayside. The creation of a “citizen” support fund for whistleblowers, intended to provide them with financial and psychological assistance, could be rejected. “One of the advances of the directive is to allow significant financial support for the whistleblower. There is an article in this bill which allows it but which seems quite fragile, and we fear that it will not withstand parliamentary scrutiny, ”notes Antoine Deltour, whistleblower behind the revelations of the Luxleaks scandal. “Lawsuits come at a cost with considerable asymmetry of resources, as whistleblowers are generally isolated citizens facing extremely powerful financial interests. The challenge of this support fund is to restore a little balance in the face of legal proceedings ”.
The issue of financial support is indeed crucial in protecting the whistleblower. Denis Robert, journalist who revealed the “Clearstream” affair in the 2000s, assessed all of his legal costs at… 800,000 euros. The American whistleblower Frances Haugen, auditioned in front of the Chamber, also stressed that many young Facebook executives did not feel they were taking the plunge, because of their still precarious status. “Money is the sinews of war,” readily admits Denis Breteau, whistleblower who denounced in 2012 rigged calls for tenders from the SNCF. “It is often David against Goliath, it is therefore crucial to provide financial support to people who raise the alarm,” recognizes the SNCF executive, stressing that this component had already been retaken in 2016 from the Sapin II law. , which posed a first legal framework for this statute.
“Criminal sanctions” for companies
Be that as it may, this new bill, which is supposed to further strengthen the status of whistleblower, is very favorably received by associations and NGOs. “It is a transposition from the top of the European directive”, recognizes the president of Anticor Elise Van Beneden. “It aims to build a more protective environment for whistleblowers, by clarifying their status, by providing for an external reporting procedure and by strengthening the sanctions against those who would try to dissuade them or to sanction them”, adds the person in charge of the anti-corruption association. It regrets, however, that the bill does not go so far as to grant the status of “protected employee” to these citizens who work for the general interest. “This would prevent them from losing their jobs – which is almost always the case – and it would send a strong signal to companies, and especially to society”.
Such measures to strengthen the status of whistleblower, Irène Frachon has also been waiting for years. The pulmonologist who revealed the Mediator scandal, supports the establishment of criminal sanctions for companies that would retaliate against a whistleblower. “I was lucky to be able to keep my job, and to have the support of my hierarchy, but the pressures I endured for years still leave me very bitter today. I would have liked the Servier laboratories to be condemned, at least to a fine, for having had my book censored, and for the time spent denouncing the dangers of a drug that they themselves should have pointed out ”, adds the doctor .
Even if it contains several advances, this bill also has many limitations, recognize most associations. Disclosures covered by national defense secrecy, medical secrecy, the secrecy of judicial deliberations, the secrecy of investigation and investigation, as well as the professional secrecy of the lawyer will be excluded from this device. “NGOs or unions can also not be considered as whistleblowers, the text specifying that only a natural person, employee or public official, can be recognized this status”, specifies Elise Van Beneden, President of Anticor . An “absurd” measure, according to
Maureen kearney, whistleblower in the Areva affair, which was able to benefit from the support of a union throughout the procedure. “This would allow people who are fragile or fearful for their physical and professional integrity to take the plunge, and thus reveal more business,” she said.