Module Learning Objective

identify the case’s framework and first obligations

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: identify the case’s framework and first obligations. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. A complete fictional procurement case joins the course skills. Follow receipt, impartial assessment, investigation, feedback and prevention improvements. Conclusions must remain within established facts, while protection conditions require their own assessment.

A fictional Estonian organisation receives work-related information about biased procurement conditions. First identify the entity’s role, procedure and facts. The word procurement alone does not determine protection. Receipt and confidentiality steps need correct timing.

Apply the following rule: TÕRTKS section 2 covers work-related information about EU-law breaches in listed fields, including procurement, EU financial interests, data protection and EU restrictive measures. It does not automatically cover every employment dispute or corruption concern. KVS section 6 contains separate corruption-reporting protection that must be assessed on its own conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Record arrival and restrict access. Check acknowledgement and the applicable framework. List known facts and avoid automatic routing to the manager named in the report. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

The account alleges conditions favouring one supplier and includes a version reference, but influence is unverified. The recipient registers it and prepares an appropriate acknowledgement. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: What comes before a final breach finding? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

Protected intake, impartial assignment and fact-checking. Acknowledgement and the report’s existence do not prove favouritism.

One mistake to avoid is: automatically treating the report as established truth.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically called protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?

Check the work-related connection, facts and TÕRTKS sections 2,3 and 13. Assess KVS section 6 separately where relevant. A form label does not confer every right. Identify an appropriate alternative route and limit disclosure if another procedure applies.

National Legal Framework: Rikkumisest teavitaja kaitse seadus, transposing Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.