Council of Europe on Whistleblowing Resolution 1729 (2010) Protection of Whistleblowers

The Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe recognises the importance of whistle-blowers – concerned individuals who sound an alarm in order to stop wrongdoings that place fellow human beings at risk – as their actions provide an opportunity to strengthen accountability and bolster the fight against corruption and mismanagement, both in the public and private sectors.


The entire whistleblower resolution 1729 (2010) with a lot of details and explanation in particular matters. Swiss law is here challgened because Switzerland does not have any whistleblower protection act and whistleblowers have been notoriously found guitly in Swiss Courts!  

European Court of Human Rights decided to protect whistleblower with the verdict of July 21st, 2011

In the Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on 21 July, 2011 in the case Whistleblower Heinisch v. Germany, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the dismissal of a geriatric nurse after having brought a criminal complaint against her employer alleging deficiencies in the care provided.

Whistleblower Netzwerk zum Fall Heinisch v German am Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) hat heute entschieden: Die fristlose Kündigung von Brigitte Heinisch, Berliner Altenpflegerin und Whistleblower-Preisträgerin 2007, und die Weigerung der deutschen Gerichte diese Kündigung aufzuheben, verstößt gegen das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit, das in Artikel 10 der Europäischen Menschenrechts-Konvention garantiert wird.


Weitere Information auf Whistleblower Netzwerk Deutschland.

Wikileaks ruling USA in matters vs Bank Julius Baer in favour of the Whistleblower Webpage WIKILEAKS

In February 2008, US judge Jeffrey White shut down the ISP for the American mirror of the Website WikiLeaks. The basis for this action was a claim by the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. On February 18, 2008, White approved an agreement between Dynadot and Baer (an injunction based on stipulation);[1][2] this action garnered news coverage around the world.[3][4]

This order was widely criticized as both improper (prior restraint is generally prohibited by the First Amendment) and ineffective (Wikileaks' web servers are in Sweden, and numerous mirrors exist).[5]

White vacated the injunction on February 29, 2008, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.[6] Wikileaks was thus able to bring its site online again. The bank dropped the case on March 5, 2008.[7] The judge also denied the bank's request for an order prohibiting the website's publication.[8]

The Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, commented:

"It's not very often a federal judge does a 180 degree turn in a case and dissolves an order. But we're very pleased the judge recognized the constitutional implications in this prior restraint."[8]


Source: Wikipedia