| Lithuania : 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)? | 25 |
| 49 | Is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption? | 0 |
| 50 | In practice, is the internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption effective? | 25 |
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: A draft Law on Protection of Suppliers of Information on Corruption Related Offenses was prepared, however, it was not adopted: [ LINK ]. References: Criminal Code (Baudziamasis kodeksas) (Article 227(4)): [ LINK ]
|
||||||||
| 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: Public sector whistleblowers are sometimes able to come forward without negative consequences, but in other cases, whistleblowers are punished for disclosing, either through official (the prosecutor is limited in promising not to prosecute for acts committed by whistleblower himself) or unofficial means (it may be hard to work in public sector institution when colleagues know that you are the whistleblower). References: Rytis Juozapavicius, Transparency International Lithuanian Chapter (Vilnius, Sept. 18, 2008) Algimantas Cepas, director, Law Institute (Vilnius, Sept. 1, 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: A draft Law on Protection of Suppliers of Information on Corruption Related Offenses was prepared, however, it was not adopted: [ LINK ] References: Criminal Code (Baudziamasis kodeksas) (Article 227(4)): [ 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: There is no big difference with public sector. Private sector whistleblowers are sometimes able to come forward without negative consequences, but in other cases, whistleblowers are punished for disclosing, either through official (the prosecutor is limited in promising not to prosecute for acts committed by whistleblower himself) or unofficial means (it may be hard to work in private sector institution when colleagues know that you are the whistleblower). References: Rytis Juozapavicius, Transparency International Lithuanian Chapter (Vilnius, Sept. 18, 2008) Algimantas Cepas, director, Law Institute (Vilnius, Sept. 1, 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: This kind of mechanism is possible, but not compulsory for particular public sector institutions. References: No laws provide such mechanism.
|
||||||||
| 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: This kind of mechanism is not compulsory for particular public sector institutions. References: Rytis Juozapavicius, Transparency International Lithuanian Chapter (Vilnius, Sept. 18, 2008) Algimantas Cepas, director, Law Institute (Vilnius, Sept. 1, 2008)
|
||||||||
| 50b: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption receives regular funding. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: References: Rytis Juozapavicius, Transparency International Lithuanian Chapter (Vilnius, Sept. 18, 2008) Algimantas Cepas, director, Law Institute (Vilnius, Sept. 1, 2008)
|
||||||||
| 50c: In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption acts on complaints within a reasonable time period. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: This kind of mechanism is not compulsory for particular public sector institutions. If such a mechanism does exist (e.g. in Special Investigation Service, Police, etc.), it is not likely to be subject to very strict rules. References: Rytis Juozapavicius, Transparency International Lithuanian Chapter (Vilnius, Sept. 18, 2008) Algimantas Cepas, director, Law Institute (Vilnius, Sept. 1, 2008)
|
||||||||
| 50d: In practice, when necessary, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption initiates investigations. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Comments: For the most part, such investigations are being conducted by Special Investigations Service, a specialized agency which is part of the police and focuses on combating corruption. References: Rytis Juozapavicius, Transparency International Lithuanian Chapter (Vilnius, Sept. 18, 2008) Egle Kavoliunaite, head of Legal System Research Department, Law Institute (Vilnius, Sept. 1, 2008)
|
||||||||
Global Integrity uses a