Romania

The scope has been extended to persons that report anonymously information regarding breaches they learned about during recruitment process, contract negotiations or post-employment. (Art. 2 (2) – Proposal 9/1/2022)

It is very disputed:
the proposal mentions anonymous reporting (Art. 2 (2) and 6 (2), cf. 11 (1b)) as an accepted way of blowing the whistle (no matter the type of reporting or the sector), but at the same time it eliminates the anonymity of the whistleblower by asking the contact details and other information (Art. 6 (2)).

There is no explicit incentivization mechanism for encouraging internal reporting compared to external reporting, but there is a clear preference for internal reporting. For example, in Chapter V, where new provisions regarding “Public reporting” (to the media and other parties) have been introduced, it is explicitly mentioned that the whisleblower will benefit of protection if he/she reported internally first (Art. 19 (1a)).

There is not an obligation per se for entities with less than 50 workers, except public institutions (Art. 9 (2)) and any entities that is subject of a long list of other EU and national laws mentioned in Appendix 3.

Municipalities with fewer than 10.000 inhabitans or with fewer than 50 workers are not exempted, but they can share the internal reporting channels. (Art. 9 (3))

Art. 9 (3) gives the possibility to municipalities with fewer than 10.000 inhabitans or with fewer than 50 workers to share the internal reporting channels and also the ‘subsequent actions’ (without mentioning explicitly what these actions might include).

The law provides some flexibility here in the sense that it appoints one institution in particular to receive these reports, namely National Integrity Agency (original name, “Agenția Națională de Integritate”, acronym ANI – www.integritate.eu), but also lets the whistleblower and ANI address other public institutions that have specific competence (Art. 12 (1), and 3 (15)).

Yes. (Art. 11 (4))

Yes. (Art. 11 (3))

No.

The modifications that were made during the last discussions of the proposal by the Romanian Parliament, excluded the support measures from Chapter VI, but left the words in the title of the section: “Protection measures, support measures, and remedies”. Art. 22 (2) and 23 (4) include free legal assistance during disciplinary procedures if the whistleblower is under such procedure in one year from the reporting. The whistleblower has to address the local bar to receive free legal assistance.

The law provides protection from retaliation in several ways: (a) by banning any form of retaliation, from firing and financial penalties to disciplinary sanctions or unilateral termination of a contract (Art. 22); (b) by allowing a judge to suspend any retaliation measure included in Art. 22 (see Art. 23 (3)); and (c) by including disuasive civil penalty for those bringing vexatious proceedings against whistleblower at least twice (Art. 23 (7)).

(a) hinder or attempt to hinder reporting is 2.000 lei – 20.000 lei / 400 – 4.000 Euro (see Art. 28 (2a));
(b) retaliation against reporting person: –;
(c) persons bringing vexatious proceedings against reporting person: if the judge determined that the person bringing such proceedings did it at least twice, it can apply a civil penalty of 40.000 lei / 8.000 Euro (see Art. 27 (7));
(d) breach of duty to maintain the confidentiality of the reporting person: 4.000 lei – 40.000 lei / 800 – 8.000 Euro (see Art. 28 (2e).

Art. 29 includes penalties for “false reporting). The penalty ranges from 2.500 lei to 30.000 lei (500-6.000 Euro).

There are no such further rights.