| Bulgaria: Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Whistle-blowing Measures | ||
| Indicators | Score | |
| 48 | Are employees protected from recrimination or other negative consequences when reporting corruption (i.e. whistle-blowing)? | 6 |
| 49 | Is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption? | 100 |
| 50 | In practice, is the internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption effective? | 63 |
Indicator and sub-Indicator Details
| 48 | Are employees protected from recrimination or other negative consequences when reporting corruption (i.e. whistle-blowing)? | |||||||
| 48a: In law, civil servants who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There is some standard protection in the Penal Code for those who cooperate with the bodies of investigation, but there is no specific protection for civil servants who report cases of corruption. References: Penal Code: [ LINK ]
Peer Review Comments: No special whistle-blower protection is afforded to those who report corruption. A draft law is under preparation within the Ministry of State Administration and Administrative Reform. Currently, in practice, there are cases where persons against whom charges were filed for corruption or other criminal offense or misconduct, started proceedings against the person who made the charges. In this context, whistle-blower protection is more than necessary.
|
||||||||
| 48b: In practice, civil servants who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Not much information is available on this, but the overall perception of the experts is that the current system does not provide the civil servants who report cases of corruption with enough protection. References: Interview with Svetoslav Georgiev, director of the Institute for Public Environment Development, Sofia, September 12, 2008.
|
||||||||
| 48c: In law, private sector employees who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: References: Penal Code: [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 48d: In practice, private sector employees who report cases of corruption, graft, abuse of power, or abuse of resources are protected from recrimination or other negative consequences. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: References: Interview with Svetoslav Georgiev, director of the Institute for Public Environment Development, Sofia, September 12, 2008.
|
||||||||
| 49 | Is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption? | |||||||
| 49: In law, is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption? | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: There is no specific law on this and no centralized system exists, but there are many inspectorates in state institutions that are meant to collect and investigate signals of corruption. Such mechanisms exist in the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of State Administration and Administrative Reform. They can receive information not only from the civil servants but also from citizens. References: See, for example, the report mechanism of the Ministry of Interior: [ LINK ]
Peer Review Comments: Every public servant, including civil servants, is under the obligation to immediately report criminal offenses that they have witnessed to investigating authorities, as well as to take the necessary steps to preserve the evidence of the crime (Art. 205, para.2 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The inspectors, who are entrusted with exercising control over the implementation of legislation in the field of civil service, are also obliged to notify the public prosecutor about any violations found during their inspections. The internal audit units also have the obligation to inform the head of their administration when they find data of fraud committed during their inspections, and if no action is taken, afterward to inform the public prosecutor (Art. 30 of the Internal Audit Act). An obligation to inform the public prosecutor is imposed on the National Audit Office (NAO) in cases where the performed audit reveals data that a crime has been committed. In such cases, the audit materials or the audit report is submitted to the public prosecution office by decision of the NAO (Art. 52 of the National Audit Office Act). However, reporting obligations are not part of the Code of Conduct of Civil Servants and the Code of Conduct for High-ranking Officials. One exception is that such obligations are specifically in place in the code of conduct developed by the Ministry of Interior. Therefore, there is a problem with making the reporting of corruption a part of the culture of civil servants. Connected with this, is the fact that reporting illegal activity to the superior is seen as a bad habit (due to the context of the past). Where there is no protection of whistle-blowers, the lack of a culture that encourages reporting could be a problem.
|
||||||||
| 50 | In practice, is the internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption effective? | |||||||
| 50a: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption has a professional, full-time staff. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Most of the inspectorates in the state institutions have sufficient staff. The problem is that signs of corruption are not their main priority. References: Interview with Svetoslav Georgiev, director of the Institute for Public Environment Development, Sofia, September 12, 2008.
|
||||||||
| 50b: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption receives regular funding. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: The inspectorates within the ministries have sufficient funding. However, it is not clear what portion of the funding is directly intended for activities related to signs of corruption. References: Interview with Svetoslav Georgiev, director of the Institute for Public Environment Development, Sofia, September 12, 2008.
|
||||||||
| 50c: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption acts on complaints within a reasonable time period. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: Despite numerous formal mechanisms for reporting corruption, there have not been any spectacular cases exposed as a result of their activity. There is no independent study on how many of the complaints are answered and how quickly. The general public has little trust in the existing reporting mechanisms. References: Interview with Svetoslav Georgiev, director of the Institute for Public Environment Development, Sofia, September 12, 2008.
|
||||||||
| 50d: In practice, when necessary, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption initiates investigations. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: So far, there have not been any spectacular investigations into cases of corruption exposed as a result of the activity of the existing reporting mechanism.
References: Interview with Svetoslav Georgiev, director of the Institute for Public Environment Development, Sofia, September 12, 2008.
|
||||||||
Global Integrity uses a