This article underscores the critical need for robust legal protections for whistleblowers in Europe while critiquing the inconsistencies observed in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Court established six criteria in the Guja judgment to evaluate interferences in whistleblowing cases. Among these, the criteria concerning the authenticity of the information disclosed by the whistleblower and their good faith in the Court’s assessment appear to be particularly problematic. The Court’s fluctuating application of these criteria undermines the development of a coherent judicial approach. Ensuring consistency in its rulings is crucial for the Court to avoid creating a chilling effect on prospective whistleblowers.
European Public Law