The fight against corruption is an extremely important issue for Croatia. Among other things, it concerns the protection of the rule of law and human rights. A positive step forward in Croatia was made with the adoption of the Whistleblower Protection Act in 2019. Soon after, a new Act was adopted in 2022, transposing the EU Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.

Already in 2019, the Act assigned a new role to the Office of the Ombudswoman in the national anti-corruption framework, designating it as the competent authority for external reporting of irregularities, as well as for monitoring the implementation of the Act in cases of internal reporting, through notifications which confidential persons are obliged to submit to the Ombudswoman.

Namely, all individuals who become aware of irregularities of public interest in their work environment have three options for reporting such irregularities:

  • Internal reporting – to a person appointed by the employer to act as a confidential person
  • External reporting – to the Ombudswoman
  • Public disclosure

Answers to all questions and doubts about how and when irregularities can be reported, what rights whistleblowers have, what obligations employers have, and many other details can be found in the comprehensive Whistleblower’s Guide, developed by the Office of the Ombudswoman.

This year, in observance of International Anti-Corruption Day (December 9), we highlight the most important information about public disclosure, which is also the most intriguing to the public, as these are cases with which the public is at least partially familiar, given that whistleblowers most commonly use the media for disclosing irregularities.

Unlike internal or external reporting, in which the identity of the whistleblower, the reported person, and data confidentiality must be protected by those handling the report, public disclosure places information directly in the public domain.

Even before the Whistleblower Protection Act came into force, and since its adoption, there have been various cases of individuals publicly revealing alleged unlawful conduct, most often through the media.

Every method of reporting irregularities is valuable, as it represents a concrete contribution to the fight against corruption and other irregularities. Additionally, public disclosure allows the public to become immediately aware of such instances and how they are being addressed, which can influence public (dis)trust in various systems – the judiciary, education, healthcare, social welfare, and others.

However, just as not every whistleblower qualifies as a whistleblower under this Act – only those who learn of an irregularity in their work environment and report a type of irregularity in the manner prescribed by the Act – not every act of speaking out publicly about irregularities constitutes public disclosure within the meaning of the Act. The key difference in these situations lies in the legal protection available to the individual after publicly pointing out the irregularities.

It is important to stress that public disclosure of corruption and other irregularities can be socially beneficial even if it does not fall under the scope of this Act. Nevertheless, for those seeking legal protection when making a public disclosure, we provide this clear and accessible explanation of the conditions under which a disclosure may be considered “public disclosure” within the meaning of the Whistleblower Protection Act – and when the reporting person is entitled to protection under the Act.

To qualify as public disclosure under the Act, the following conditions must be met:

  1. The person reporting the irregularity must fall within the scope of the Act:

This means:

  • The individual became aware of the irregularity in their work environment
  • They had reasonable belief that the irregularities were true at the time of the disclosure
  1. The irregularities being disclosed must relate to the areas covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act:

These include:

  • Public procurement, financial services, products and markets, and the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing
  • Product safety and compliance
  • Transport safety
  • Environmental protection, radiation protection, and nuclear safety
  • Food and feed safety, animal health and welfare
  • Public health
  • Consumer protection
  • Protection of privacy and personal data, and the security of network and information systems
  • Irregularities affecting the financial interests of the EU
  • Irregularities related to the internal market
  • Other breaches of national law that endanger the public interest
  1. One of the three conditions for public disclosure must be met:
  • The whistleblower first reported internally (to the employer’s confidential person) or externally (to the Ombudswoman), but no appropriate action was taken within the legal time frame
  • The whistleblower has reasonable grounds to believe that the irregularity may pose an imminent or manifest threat to the public interest, such as in a crisis situation or risk of irreversible harm
  • The whistleblower believes that using internal or external channels poses a risk of retaliation or that the irregularity is unlikely to be effectively addressed due to the specific circumstances of the case

Only if all the above conditions are met can a disclosure be considered public disclosure within the meaning of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the individual who made the disclosure may be entitled to the protection provided under the Act.

For more precise and clear information on who can report irregularities, when and how, and what rights and protections can be exercised, refer to the Whistleblower’s Guide.