Whistleblower Protection in Lithuanian Criminal Law: Between the EU Directive and Practical Gaps
Eglė Vaizgėlaitė, from Lithuania’s Vytautas Magnus University, was the winner of the inaugural Lewis Master Thesis Award. She discusses her thesis, “Issues of Whistleblower Exemption from Criminal Liability in Lithuanian Criminal Law”, and her findings in this blog post.
In recent decades, the protection of whistleblowers has become a critical issue in ensuring transparency, accountability, and the fight against corruption. According to research conducted by Transparency International in 2013, Lithuania was among the EU countries where whistleblower protection was inadequately regulated. This legal gap meant that individuals who sought to expose criminal or unethical activities, especially corruption, often faced significant personal and professional risk.
In response, Lithuania adopted the Whistleblower Protection Act and introduced Article 39-2 into its Criminal Code, titled “Whistleblower Exemption from Criminal Liability.” This legal provision allows individuals to avoid criminal liability if they disclose wrongdoing, provided they meet certain conditions. However, these conditions, such as the nature of the criminal act, the individual’s past behavior, and the evaluative nature of their confession, are seen as overly rigid. Critics argue that this restricts the scope of legal protection and may discourage potential whistleblowers.
In my thesis, I set out to examine the legal construction and practical implications of Article 39-2 of Lithuania’s Criminal Code in the context of whistleblower protection from criminal liability. My main research question was: Does the current legal framework in Lithuania adequately ensure the protection of whistleblowers in line with international and European human rights standards? To answer this, I conducted a doctrinal analysis of Lithuanian law, EU Directive 2019/1937, and case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
“My findings reveal that, while Lithuania has taken positive legislative steps, the legal framework still lacks clarity, flexibility, and harmonization with EU norms. In particular, the application of Article 39-2 is hindered by formalistic criteria. A more coherent and rights-based approach is required to bridge the gap between legal obligations and ethical imperatives.”
The contrast between Lithuania’s approach and the European Union directive is stark. Directive (EU) 2019/1937 highlights that the disclosure of information must be necessary and proportionate and emphasizes the rationality of the whistleblower’s actions. In contrast, Lithuanian law still centers more on the danger posed by the whistleblower’s actions rather than their motive or public benefit. This discrepancy complicates the application of Article 39-2 and may conflict with broader EU principles.
Although Article 39-2 of Lithuania’s Criminal Code aligns with some ECHR principles, such as focusing on the authenticity of disclosures, it still lacks full harmonization with European human rights standards. Further, proposals in the European Parliament aimed at ensuring full exemption from any legal liability for whistleblowers, including criminal, were ultimately rejected. However, the conversation continues, and these efforts have undeniably influenced both national and EU-level discourse.
As Lithuania moves forward, ensuring that legal protections align with international standards and foster a safe environment for whistleblowers remains a crucial step toward transparency and democratic integrity.
