3
The Protection of Whistleblowers in the Republic of Croatia
89
Facts of the Case The applicant had been working for the joint-stock company INA – Industrija nafte d.d. (hereinafter “INA” or “the company”) from 17 June 1983 to 18 April 2001, when she was dismissed. In the course of her work the applicant analysed issues relating to losses of petrol during transport from refineries to petrol stations. She came to the conclusion that in 2000 the value of petrol lost during transport amounted to 25,872,208.97 HRK, of which only 5,056,818.86 HRK had been compensated by the hauliers. Her findings suggested that the relevant persons in INA had shown considerable laxity as regards claiming compensation for the remaining losses. In the course of 3 months, the applicant informed her immediate superior INA’s general director and the INA’s supervisory board of her findings and submitted all the relevant documentation to them. After her continuous sending of letters to her superiors did not yield any results, a newspaper published articles about the INA case and included the contents of the letters sent by the applicant to her superiors. The articles in question also included interviews with the applicant. On 2 May 2001 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of her employment-related rights (“zahtjev za zaštitu prava”) in response to the decision to dismiss her. On 14 May 2001 INA dismissed the applicant’s request.
Case Balenović Before Croatian Courts On 23 May 2001 the applicant brought civil action against INA before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) challenging her dismissal. She sought reinstatement and salary arrears, however, the Court dismissed the applicant’s action by its decision of 10 December 2002.63 On 11 November 2003 the Zagreb 63
Judgement of the Zagreb Municipal Court, Pr-2631/01-43, 10-12-2002, relevant part: “In the opinion of this court, irrespective of whether the plaintiff disclosed a business secret or financial or other information which does not represent a business secret, she acted contrary to the interests of the employer […], regardless of the employer’s ownership structure and the accuracy of the published information, in that she made extremely negative statements in the media, as a result of which she primarily harmed the reputation of the employer. By making public statements in this way, the plaintiff acted contrary to the [internal regulations] on business correspondence in INA […], Rule 7 of which provides that the authority to conduct business communications and correspondence and provide information to the media lies exclusively with the general director and the director of the sector of promotional activities […], and Rule 10 of which provides that nonobservance constitutes a breach of the employee’s duty, with the resultant consequences. Each of the above-mentioned breaches is, in the opinion of this court, [in itself] a sufficient reason allowing the respondent to lawfully dismiss the plaintiff […] because [she] committed particularly serious breaches of employment-related duties, as a result of which, taking into account all the circumstances and the interests of both parties, the continuation of the employment relationship is no longer possible. It is to be noted that this court cannot find a ‘civic duty’ in, or deriving from, any existing legal provision, apart from the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides that the plaintiff, as a citizen, must file a criminal complaint against the perpetrator if she considers that a criminal offence has been committed. The civic duty is thereby discharged and the competent State authorities then proceed with the investigation of the criminal offence and identification of the perpetrators.
