Anonymous whistleblowing in Poland: Insights from the first annual report of the Commissioner for Human Rights
19 June 2026
This article is authored by Karolina Ewa Bilicka and is the first in a series of blog posts written by students of the Maynooth University (MU) School of Law and Criminology, LLM Whistleblowing Law Clinic, under the supervision of Dr Lauren Kierans (Lecturer in Law at MU University and Co-Founder & Director of Education at the European Whistleblowing Institute).
Poland’s Whistleblowing Protection Act (Ustawa o ochronie sygnalistów) (the ‘Act’) entered into force in September 2024, following years of legislative delay and a fine imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in April 2024 for late transposition [1]. Now that the external reporting channel is operational, the Commissioner for Human Rights (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)) has published its first annual report covering the period from December 2024 to December 2025 [2]. This data offers important insights into how the system is functioning, and the treatment of anonymous reports is a particular concern.
Anonymous reporting through internal and external channels
Poland’s Act permits anonymous reporting through both internal and external channels under Article 7(1) [3]. This goes beyond the minimum required by the EU Whistleblower Directive, which allows Member States to decide whether legal entities in the private or public sector, as well as competent authorities, are required to accept and follow up on anonymous reports, leaving the matter to national discretion under Article 6(2) [4].
Poland chose to permit anonymous reporting but conditionally. The RPO accepts anonymous submissions only in limited circumstances (ograniczonym zakresie), weighing the gravity of the alleged violation and its significance for the public interest [5]. Critically, Article 7(3) of the Act further provides that anonymous reporters are excluded from the full scope of procedural protections [6]. They do not have the right to acknowledgement of receipt, entitlement to feedback on the outcome, or access to a certificate of whistleblower protection. This discretionary threshold is lawful under the Directive, but it raises some practical concerns, such as a higher risk of rejection at intake by anonymous reporters, and those whose reports do proceed are stripped of the procedural rights afforded to identified reporters.
Number of anonymous reports and access to legal protections
Between 27 December 2024 and 31 December 2025, the RPO received 690 submissions through its external reporting channel. Of these, 223 were accepted as formal external reports meeting the conditions set out in the Act [7]. Of the 690 submissions, 175 were made anonymously, where only 72 (of the 223) were accepted as qualifying external reports, and 54 were forwarded to competent authorities [8]. These numbers raise important questions about legal protection. For many potential whistleblowers, anonymity is not a preference but rather a practical necessity for making a report, particularly where power imbalances, fear of workplace retaliation, or unstable employment make identified reporting feel insupportable. While the overall acceptance rate across all 690 submissions was similarly low at 32%, anonymous reporters face a distinct additional burden where reports that proceed are excluded by Article 7(3) of the Act from the procedural protections available to identified reporters. The chilling effect, therefore, operates not only at the point of rejection but within the system itself.
Unlawful identity disclosures: Ministry of Science and Ministry of Culture cases
The RPO’s own activity in 2025 highlights how real the risks of identification of the reporting person are. The Commissioner initiated two cases of its own motion concerning the unlawful disclosure of whistleblower identities. One involved a trade union chairperson who reported irregularities at the University of Szczecin to the Ministry of Science, explicitly requesting that her identity be kept confidential. However, the Ministry forwarded her letter to the Rector despite her request for privacy, allegedly triggering retaliatory action [9]. The other involved an employee of the Pilecki Institute whose letter to the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage was forwarded to her immediate supervisor despite her request for confidentiality, ultimately resulting in her dismissal [10]. In both cases, the disclosing authority was a central government ministry. These cases illustrate the real-world consequences when identity protection mechanisms fail. Significantly, Article 7(2) of the Act provides that where an anonymous reporter’s identity is subsequently disclosed, and they suffer retaliation, [11] the full anti-retaliation protections of Chapter 2 apply [12]. Whether this provision proved effective in either case remains to be seen.
Anonymous reporting and future EU law revision
Poland is not unique in adopting a discretionary approach to anonymous reports, as several EU member states have made the same choice under Article 6(2) of the Directive [13]. However, Poland’s first-year data translates that discretionary design choice into measurable outcomes, revealing the gap between formal permission and practical effect in a way that abstract legal comparison cannot. As the RPO prepares its first biennial report (pierwsze sprawozdanie) to the Sejm, the Senate, and the European Commission, the fate of anonymous reports is a metric worth examining closely [14]. A law that protects whistleblowers on paper should also protect those who are not yet ready to put their name to their disclosures.
[1] Case C-147/23 Commission v Poland (Whistleblowers Directive) EU:C:2024:343 (25 April 2024).
[2] Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, 'Podsumowanie dotyczące przyjmowania zgłoszeń zewnętrznych sygnalistów w 2024 i 2025 roku' (Zespół do spraw Sygnalistów Biura RPO, 10 February 2026) www.gov.pl/web/sygnalisci/podsumowanie-zgloszenia-zewnetrzne-2024-2025 accessed 15 May 2026.
[3] Ustawa z dnia 14 czerwca 2024 r. o ochronie sygnalistów (Dz.U. 2024 poz. 928), art 7(1).
[4] Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law [2019] OJ L305/17, art 6(2).
[5] Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, 'Anonimowe zgłoszenie — najważniejsze informacje' (Zespół do spraw Sygnalistów Biura RPO) /www.gov.pl/web/sygnalisci/anonimowe-zgloszenie-najwazniejsze-informacje accessed 15 May 2026.
[6] Ustawa o ochronie sygnalistów 2024 (n 3), art 7(3).
[7] RPO Annual Report (n 2).
[8] ibid.
[9] Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, 'Sprawa ujawnienia ewentualnych nieprawidłowości w Uniwersytecie Szczecińskim. Kolejne pismo do MNiSzW' (Biuro Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-uniwersytet-szczecinski-nieprawidlowosci-mniszw-kolejne accessed 15 May 2026.
[10] Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, 'Sprawa ujawnienia danych sygnalistki przełożonemu. Kolejne pismo do MKiDN' (Biuro Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich) https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-ujawnienie-danych-sygnalistki-mkidn-kolejne accessed 15 May 2026.
[11] Ustawa o ochronie sygnalistów 2024 (n 3), art 7(2); Directive 2019/1937 (n 4) art 6(3).
[12] Ustawa o ochronie sygnalistów 2024 (n 3), arts 11-22.
[13] Directive 2019/1937 (n 4) art 6(2).
[14] Ustawa o ochronie sygnalistów 2024 (n 3), art 63(2).
