Transparency Serbia: State Arms Maker Krusik Whistleblower Not Protected under Law

Nemanja Nenadic (Beta/Milan Obradovic)

Transparency Serbia Program Director Nemanja Nenadic on Oct. 15 said that the whistleblower from state-owned defense industry firm Krusik would not be able to seek protection under the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers as the Law contained “systemic deficiency” that a whistleblowing action in public interest did not constitute a legal ground for relieving that person of criminal or other responsibility.

“Precisely, in relation to handling confidential data, Article 20 of this Law stipulates that a whistleblower can address a public authority – prosecutor, state audit institution or ministry, but not disclose data directly to the public or media,” Nenadic told Belgrade daily Danas.

He explained that the whistleblower would not be able to seek protection under law, but that it did not mean that the person should be prosecuted or convicted for what he had done.

“The focus should be on proving that this case involves disclosure of the data which should not have been classified and on insisting that criminal proceedings against that person should not start before this matter is resolved,” Nenadic explained.

He further said that a potential criminal case against the Krusik IT expert, known by the initials A.O., for disclosing trade secrets depended on several factors – whether the information he had disclosed to media had been classified and whether there had existed ground for labeling the disclosed information as confidential.

“If it is a piece of information that is of interest to Serbia, then the case would also be subject to provisions of the Law on Confidential Information and not only to the Law on the Protection of Trade Secrets,” Nenadic noted.

If, according to Nenadic, the information had been classified only to cover for business operations which were damaging to the state company, then there would be no ground for prosecuting the whistleblower.

“The problem with such concept of relieving a person of the responsibility for disclosing secrets is that the obligation to maintain confidentiality is probably defined in general terms and not specifically or for this type of information,” Nenadic specified.

According to him, the problem in practice arises when the application of such a general document “protects confidentiality and data on a concrete business action which is damaging or at odds with the rules.”