CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

HARALD CHRISTIAN SCHEU human rights standards. In this sense, the EU Directive of 2019 explicitly refers not only to the ECHR, but also to the relevant case law of the ECtHR. On the other hand, such references do not preclude conflicting rules and interpretations. Indeed, four differences have been identified that may lead to divergent standards of protection: firstly, the subsidiarity of external disclosure in relation to internal reporting channels, secondly, the principle of good faith, thirdly, the scope of protected reporting, and fourthly the consideration of the employer’s interests as part of a complex balancing exercise. Given these differences, whistleblowing cases may be resolved differently by the ECtHR and under the Directive, and, ultimately, it will be a challenge for the EU Court of Justice to avoid open conflicts with the ECtHR. The Grand Chamber judgment in Halet v. Luxembourg has the potential to become the leading case in the field of European whistleblower protection. By not making a single reference to the EU Directive in its reasoning, the ECtHR has sent a clear message to the EU institutions and Member States. Even after the adoption of the EU Whistleblower Directive and its transposition into the national laws of the EU Member States, the ECtHR intends to stick to its own standard. Ultimately, the problem of differing standards of whistleblower protection shows how important it would be for the EU to accede to the ECHR and fully comply with Strasbourg’s human rights standards.

164