From Neglect to Protection: Attitudes towards Whistleblowers in the European Institutions (1957–2002)

Joris Gijsenbergh

doi:10.17645/pag.v9i1.3944

Abstract

This article analyses how transparency became a buzzword in the European Union (EU) and its predecessors. In order to do so, it examines how the European Parliament (EP), the European Commission, the Court of Justice, and earlier European institutions responded to whistleblowing, between 1957 and 2002. In 2019, the EP agreed to encourage and protect whistleblowers. However, whistleblowing is far from a recent phenomenon. Historical examples include Louis Worms (1957), Stanley Adams (1973), and Paul van Buitenen (1998). Based on policy documents and parliamentary debates, this article studies the attitudes and reactions within European institutions towards whistleblowing. Their responses to unauthorized disclosures show how their views on openness developed from the beginning of European integration. Such cases sparked debate on whether whistleblowers deserved praise for revealing misconduct, or criticism for breaching corporate and political secrecy. In addition, whistleblowing cases urged politicians and officials to discuss how valuable transparency was, and whether the public deserved to be informed. This article adds a historical perspective to the multidisciplinary literature on whistleblowing. Both its focus on the European Coal and Steel Community, European Economic Community, and EU and its focus on changing attitudes towards transparency provide an important contribution to this multidisciplinary field.

Highlights

In 2019, the European Parliament (EP) and the Council of the European Union adopted minimum standards ‘ensuring that whistleblowers are protected effectively’ in all Member States of the European Union (EU; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019, 2019, p. 17)
When MEPs and Commissioners underscored the importance of transparency, they did not talk about the right of citizens to scrutinize the European institutions
Magda Aelvoet, leader of the Greens and the first MEP Van Buitenen had informed about the fraud, pointed out: ‘it is not the fact that this case came to light, but the fact that this suspension came to light which called forth a storm of protest’ (“Debate,” 1999a, p. 12)

Summary

Introduction

In 2019, the European Parliament (EP) and the Council of the European Union adopted minimum standards ‘ensuring that whistleblowers are protected effectively’ in all Member States of the European Union (EU; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019, 2019, p. 17). Similar to the other two cases, he forced MEPs, the Commission, and the Court to discuss whether they should defend whistleblowers and the free flow of information. During the first decades of this period, Worms, Adams, and Van Buitenen seem to be the only high-profile whistleblowers involved with European institutions.

Results

Conclusion