On 23 June, World Whistleblower Day, Transparency International Belgium (TI-BE) highlights the implementation of the European directive on whistleblowers in our country. The aim of this article is to explore the main problems and obstacles concerning whistleblower protection in Belgium.
This article is based on the report published on March 16 by Transparency International, titled “How effective is whistleblower protection in the EU?”: How-effective-is-whistleblower-protection-in-the-EU_Report.pdf, which analyses the implementation of the European directive in various European countries.
The Federal Ombudsman in collaboration with FIRM-IFDH produced a guide for Whistleblowers. In Belgium, there are three separate channels for reporting irregularities:
- Internal reporting channel: reporting the facts within the organisation where they occurred.
- External reporting channel: reporting to the competent authorities designated by law, independent of the organisation like the Federal Ombudsman
- Public disclosures: reporting through the media or publicly via a website or a social media in exceptional cases.
If you think you are in a whistleblower situation, you can find the full procedure here: Guide-for-whistleblowers.pdf.
Institutionnal cooperation
While these reporting channels exist, their effectiveness heavily relies on how authorities work together. For Transparency International, ‘the real battleground for effective whistleblowing lies in the relationship between organisations and the regulatory or oversight bodies tasked with holding them accountable’.
In Belgium, responsibility for handling and following up on reports is shared among several authorities, which has advantages – as these authorities already have the power to tackle irregularities – but also disadvantages, with a risk of fragmentation of the institutional framework, overlapping of poorly defined mandates and disparities in operational capabilities. For example, when an external reporting channel is used, each level of government has its own definition of misconduct in relation to whistleblower protection, which complicates access to information and the effective protection of the whistleblower. This complexity is also evident in the difficulties of accessing information, which vary according to the region of residence and require the ability to navigate among different laws.
For its part, the Belgian Ombudsman acts as an intermediary by analysing and handling reports from the private sector; it serves as a link between the relevant authorities and whistleblowers.
More generally, at European Union level, the report highlighted a number of challenges common to most Member States, including: insufficient human and financial resources, a lack of coordination between authorities, unclear or poorly communicated procedures for whistleblowers, as well as limited powers to ensure protection or impose sanctions in cases of retaliation and other breaches of whistleblower legislation.
Protecting whistleblowers: what is the situation in Belgium ?
- Protection against retaliation
Retaliation exposes whistleblowers to financial, professional and emotional harm. The core approach outlined by Transparency International is based on the principle of restoring, as far as possible, the whistleblower’s previous situation. However, minority groups such as women, people from ethnic or racial minorities, the LGBTQIA+ community, and others tend to suffer more from indirect or subtle forms of retaliation. These biases should therefore be taken into account in the protection afforded to whistleblowers.
In the Belgian system, the Federal Ombudsman states: “As a whistleblower, you are automatically protected against retaliation, even if your report turns out to be incorrect or unfounded” Protection against retaliation | Federaalombudsman.be.
- The burden of proof
To enforce this protection against retaliation, a key legal mechanism comes into play: the burden of proof. According to TI report and in line with best practice, the Directive provides for a reversal of the burden of proof. Once a person who has reported facts demonstrates that they have made a report or public disclosure and have subsequently suffered harm, the existence of retaliation is presumed. It is then incumbent upon the person or entity that imposed the prejudicial measure to prove that this action was based on duly justified grounds, that is to say, that it was in no way linked to the report or public disclosure.
In Belgium, there is a strict requirement of ‘no link’: it is incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate that the contested measure is in no way link to the report.
- Compensations mechanism
Even with the reverse of the burden of proof, whistleblowers who suffer harm must be properly compensated. The Guide for whistleblowers explains that in Belgium, the court may award you compensation for the harm caused if you are recognised as a victim. For more information: Guide-for-whistleblowers.pdf (3.92 MB).
Nevertheless, the Transparency International report indicates that the legal remedies available to whistleblowers in Belgium are limited: ‘Remedies in these jurisdictions are restricted or fragmented, and often rely on general provisions of labour law. Compensation may be capped or limited to certain types of harm, and reinstatement is either impossible or uncertain.”
Belgium should provide simple and effective compensation and protection against retaliation so as not to discourage potential whistleblowers.
- Advice and support
To navigate these complex legal and compensation processes, whistleblowers need solid guidance. TI points out that the European Directive on the protection of whistleblowers requires Member States to facilitate whistleblowing by ensuring access to comprehensive, independent and free information and advice, as well as legal assistance. In Belgium, whistleblower protection laws provide for free legal assistance for whistleblowers or financial support to cover their legal costs, in addition to standard legal aid schemes for those eligible on the basis of their financial circumstances, as well as psychological support.
The problem, however, is that only a few reports are recognised as whistleblowing reports, meaning that the number of people actually benefiting from this support is very limited.
Sanctions and conflict resolution
When protection and support fail to prevent retaliation, the system must rely on enforcement and dispute resolution.
- Quasi-judicial and administrative practice
In Belgium, competent authorities may act as mediators in retaliation cases. In private and federal public sector, the Federal Ombuds can review complaints and require organisations to demonstrate that adverse measures are unrelated to whistleblowing. If this is not proven, the ombuds may recommend rescinding the measure or providing compensation within a relatively short time frame.
While TI highlights that the procedure is significantly faster than court proceedings, its non-binding nature and reliance on the parties’ good faith limit its practical effectiveness and only a small number of cases are resolved through this mechanism each year.
- Penalties for violations
The EU Whistleblowing Directive requires national legislation to establish an effective system of penalties to uphold the integrity of the whistleblower protection framework. In Belgium big fines for retaliation for organisations can be up to 576 000€. It even establishes criminal offences capable of leading to prison sentences for violations of whistleblower protection. The Guide for Whistleblowers specifies that in Belgium, the person found guilty of retaliation may be penalized by the court. They could be ordered to pay a fine between €600 and €6.000 and/or face a prison sentence of between six months and three years.
However, in practice, theses criminal law provisions are rarely utilised. Thus, the effectiveness of such sanctions can be questioned.
Data collection and reporting
Ultimately, to measure the real impact of these sanctions and protections, continuous monitoring is essential.
All countries, including Belgium, are encouraged to collect and publish all data on whistleblower reports so that gaps and shortcomings in whistleblower protection can be analysed.
Some countries have introduced provisions for periodic reviews in their legislation, but this is not the case in Belgium. These reviews generally focus on the effectiveness of reporting channels and the functioning of protections and safeguards against retaliation.
Regarding the private sector in Belgium, it is not very clear to what extent the directive has been implemented, as we do not have transparent access to private sector data.
The Federal Ombudsman’s 2025 report1 states that, in the private sector, 16.5% of reports submitted to the Federal Ombudsman were admissible, compared with 11.5% in the federal public sector, often because the reports were not made in a professional context. These figures reflect a lack of awareness regarding procedures for raising concerns. Information must be transparent, clear, and easily accessible.
Regarding the private sector in Belgium, it is not very clear to what extent the directive has been implemented, as we do not have transparent access to private sector data.
In summary, whilst Belgium has put in place effective measures to transpose the European directive, a significant gap remains between the existence of laws on paper and the effective protection of individuals in practice. The protection of whistleblowers is a cornerstone of a democratic society and must be at the heart of discussions within companies and public institutions.
In the future, the focus must be on full implementation. Whistleblowers must be afforded comprehensive and easily accessible protection, including legal, financial and psychological support. It is essential to analyze and address gender-based bias to ensure equal protection against all forms of retaliation. By combining this comprehensive human support with systematic data collection and the application of concrete sanctions, Belgium can transform its legal framework into genuine protection for whistleblowers.
