{"id":9511,"date":"2025-03-14T09:34:30","date_gmt":"2025-03-14T08:34:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/explegal.local\/whistleblowing-recent-gurisprudential-developments\/"},"modified":"2026-07-08T14:54:43","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T12:54:43","slug":"whistleblowing-recent-gurisprudential-developments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/whistleblowing-recent-gurisprudential-developments\/","title":{"rendered":"Whistleblowing: regulatory evolution and recent gurisprudential developments"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Whistleblowing is a key element in the fight against corruption and the promotion of transparency within public and private organizations. Regulations aim to ensure whistleblower protection against retaliation and establish effective procedures for managing reports.<\/span><\/p>\n


2. The European Legal Framework<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The whistleblowing framework in the European Union took a significant turn with Directive (EU) 2019\/1937, which requires Member States to implement protection systems for whistleblowers. This Directive mandates companies with more than 50 employees and public entities to establish secure reporting channels, ensuring anonymity and protection from retaliation.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. The Italian Regulation: From 2017 to 2025<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Italy transposed the EU Directive with Legislative Decree No. 24\/2023, introducing enhanced protections for whistleblowers. The law safeguards whistleblowers from direct retaliation (dismissal, harassment) and indirect retaliation (punitive actions against colleagues or family members). Article 17 establishes a reversal of the burden of proof: if a whistleblower suffers retaliation, it is presumed to be a consequence of the report, and the employer must prove otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. The Role of ANAC and Reporting Platforms<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC) plays a central role in managing reports. 62% of Italian public administrations have adopted dedicated platforms, while 38% use less structured tools such as certified email or regular mail. ANAC has recently improved its reporting platform, enhancing security and whistleblower anonymity.<\/span><\/p>\n

5. Recent Jurisprudential Developments in Italy (2024-2025)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In recent years, Italian jurisprudence has provided important clarifications on the limits and legitimate use of whistleblowing, strengthening whistleblower protection while also defining the boundaries within which this tool can be lawfully employed. The most relevant rulings from 2024 and 2025 have addressed key issues such as the reversal of the burden of proof, misuse of whistleblowing, and the balance between confidentiality and the rights of those reported.<\/span><\/p>\n

Court of Cassation, Labor Section, May 15, 2024, No. 14093<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
The Court clarified that whistleblower protection does not extend to individuals who commit illegal acts while making a report. In this case, an employee had stolen confidential company documents to support a complaint of irregularities but was denied protection under Legislative Decree No. 24\/2023. The ruling reaffirmed that whistleblowers are protected only if their conduct complies with legal parameters.<\/span><\/p>\n

Court of Cassation, Labor Section, September 20, 2024, No. 17715<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of misuse of whistleblowing powers. In the case examined, a public employee secretly recorded a conversation with a professor and published it on social media, claiming to act as a whistleblower. The Court ruled that this behavior fell outside the protections provided for whistleblowers, emphasizing that whistleblowing does not authorize employees to discredit colleagues or superiors through illegal means or breaches of confidentiality.<\/span><\/p>\n

Court of Cassation, Labor Section, December 6, 2024, No. 31343<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
The Court confirmed the reversal of the burden of proof in retaliation cases. According to the ruling, when an employee reports an offense and subsequently suffers a punitive measure (such as dismissal or demotion), there is a presumption that a causal link exists between the report and the adverse measure. Therefore, the burden falls on the employer to prove that the measure was taken for reasons unrelated to the report.<\/span><\/p>\n

Court of Cassation, Labor Section, January 27, 2025, No. 1880<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
This ruling established a fundamental principle: whistleblowing cannot be used for personal disputes or claims related to employment relationships. The Court stressed that reports must concern offenses of public interest, while personal grievances against superiors or colleagues must follow different legal procedures. Furthermore, it was reiterated that misuse of whistleblowing can justify disciplinary measures or even relocation for workplace incompatibility.<\/span><\/p>\n

Council of State, Section VI, December 6, 2021, No. 8150 (referenced in Cass. 1880\/2025)<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
Although not a recent ruling, this decision was referenced by the Cassation Court in 2025 to emphasize that misuse of whistleblowing can justify transferring the whistleblower if it emerges that the report was driven more by personal interests than a genuine desire to protect legality.<\/span>
<\/p>\n

6. Conclusions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Whistleblowing is an essential tool for transparency, but it requires correct and proportionate application. It is crucial to ensure a balance between whistleblower protection and corporate interests, preventing procedural abuses.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. Introduction Whistleblowing is a key element in the fight against corruption and the promotion of transparency within public and private organizations. Regulations aim to ensure whistleblower protection against retaliation and establish effective procedures for managing reports. 2. The European…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"featured_media":9510,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[2689,2641,2687],"class_list":["post-9511","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","tag-case-law","tag-compliance","tag-whistleblowing"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9511","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9511"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9511\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9898,"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9511\/revisions\/9898"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9510"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9511"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9511"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/explegal.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9511"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}