Post by account_disabled on Mar 9, 2024 22:41:47 GMT -5
The fight against corruption in modern societies additional behaviors are required to those of a pure regulatory framework in the penal or administrative sanctioning field. To put it more clearly: the criminal reproach and, therefore, the administrative one, has become insufficient to achieve a fight against pathological behaviors in the field of public corruption, first, and corruption between individuals, a posteriori. The insufficiency stems from a cluster of factors ranging from the criminal's sophistication in the formulation of the offense to the ability to operate in countries where there are no conventional legal relationships or where legal relationships are established in a non-conventional manner. This has led to a reduction in the degree of effectiveness of the police and judicial systems, no matter how much progress has been made in the regulations that regulate both areas. Based on the verification of this reality, the eyes of the world, especially, from the Anglo-Saxon and from the European Union itself, they turned to individuals. It was suggested that the effectiveness of this fight would only progress from citizen collaboration.
This consideration has forced, in turn, to reformulate the legal techniques for the protection of persons that collaborate in the discovery of the behaviors that find a penal or administrative classification. In this context, it is sought, as we say, the collaboration of the complainant. The first technique that is imported from the field of competition is the one related to the reduction of the degree of responsibility and the sanction of the collaborating whistleblower. The denunciation of the collaborator passes to our legislation and today it is contemplated in the procedural norms of a common nature. It is true, however, that the spectrum of collaboration could be broader than that referring to the person USA Phone Number who has participated in the facts and seeks their exculpation. Society as a whole has or can have a relevant role in this collaboration. This is where the so-called complaint channels arise. European legislation devoted, initially, a series of efforts to encourage -more or less euphemistically speaking- the creation and management of channels. But it is quickly observed that some elements of effectiveness suffer if the identity of the complainant can be known and, therefore, the possibilities of increasing the number are limited, especially if elements of coercion or retaliation begin to be appreciated.
This has led to Spanish legislator to dictate Law 2/2023, of February 20, regulating the protection of people who report violations of regulations and the fight against corruption. This law incorporates Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 23, 2019 into Spanish Law. Now the focus is broader as established in article 1 of the same when it states that (the)<<... purpose of granting adequate protection against reprisals that may be suffered by natural persons who report any of the actions or omissions to referred to in article 2, through the procedures provided for in it...>>. Determination that is specified with the indication of the provisions in section 2 when it indicates that <<... Its purpose is also to strengthen the culture of information, of the integrity infrastructures of organizations and the promotion of the culture of information or communication as a mechanism to prevent and detect threats to the public interest...>>. It is true that the norm it has a broader content than simple protection. In this sense, the creation of an independent authority that must solve complaints of retaliation stands out, but also that can become an external channel that, with the guarantees of the public sphere, is the instrument for processing the complaints themselves.
This consideration has forced, in turn, to reformulate the legal techniques for the protection of persons that collaborate in the discovery of the behaviors that find a penal or administrative classification. In this context, it is sought, as we say, the collaboration of the complainant. The first technique that is imported from the field of competition is the one related to the reduction of the degree of responsibility and the sanction of the collaborating whistleblower. The denunciation of the collaborator passes to our legislation and today it is contemplated in the procedural norms of a common nature. It is true, however, that the spectrum of collaboration could be broader than that referring to the person USA Phone Number who has participated in the facts and seeks their exculpation. Society as a whole has or can have a relevant role in this collaboration. This is where the so-called complaint channels arise. European legislation devoted, initially, a series of efforts to encourage -more or less euphemistically speaking- the creation and management of channels. But it is quickly observed that some elements of effectiveness suffer if the identity of the complainant can be known and, therefore, the possibilities of increasing the number are limited, especially if elements of coercion or retaliation begin to be appreciated.
This has led to Spanish legislator to dictate Law 2/2023, of February 20, regulating the protection of people who report violations of regulations and the fight against corruption. This law incorporates Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 23, 2019 into Spanish Law. Now the focus is broader as established in article 1 of the same when it states that (the)<<... purpose of granting adequate protection against reprisals that may be suffered by natural persons who report any of the actions or omissions to referred to in article 2, through the procedures provided for in it...>>. Determination that is specified with the indication of the provisions in section 2 when it indicates that <<... Its purpose is also to strengthen the culture of information, of the integrity infrastructures of organizations and the promotion of the culture of information or communication as a mechanism to prevent and detect threats to the public interest...>>. It is true that the norm it has a broader content than simple protection. In this sense, the creation of an independent authority that must solve complaints of retaliation stands out, but also that can become an external channel that, with the guarantees of the public sphere, is the instrument for processing the complaints themselves.