Halet v Luxembourg

Halet v Luxembourg, application no 21884/18
European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber
Spano P, Kjølbro, O’Leary, Ravarani, Grozev, Mits, Mourou-Vikström, Koskelo, Eicke, Paczolay, Chanturia, Jelic, Bårdsen, Sabato, Guyomar, Ktistakis, & Zünd JJ & Deputy Registrar Campos
Whistle blowers – the applicant was a French national, formerly employed by PwC, who appealed his conviction and EU1,000 fine in Luxembourg for disclosing to a journalist confidential documents showing tax practices of multi-national corporations – the applicant relied on Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, that provides that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” – held (by majority): the Grand Chamber had previously recognised whistle blower status in Guja v Moldova – Section 2 of Article 10 provides that the right of freedom of expression is subject to such conditions, restrictions, or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence – in assessing the competing interests applicable to a whistle blower, national courts must consider the availability of alternative channels for making the disclosure, the public interest in the disclosed information, the applicant’s good faith, the authenticity of the disclosed information, the damage done to the employer, and the severity of the penalty – the Grand Camber concluded that the penalty was not proportionate to all of the facts – there was substantial public interest in the materials disclosed even though theft was involved.
Halet