MAINSYSTEMS 
apply national criteria for using an external channel
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
Today we will learn to apply national criteria for using an external channel. Throughout the video, consider the difference between knowing a rule and applying it to a decision. We will work through an example, identify a possible failure and develop a response that can be used at work. External reporting, retaliation protection and institutional reports have different purposes, actors and deadlines. This course applies the Croatian Act with its 2025 amendments. Demonstrations are fictional and send no real reports.
Article 23 permits direct reporting to the Ombudsman without an internal report first. Since 2025, Article 12(4) also protects direct reporting to police or the public prosecutor within their competence, subject to the Act’s conditions. This does not automatically cover direct reporting to every body. Public disclosure has separate conditions.
Apply the following rule: The Ombudswoman is the competent external reporting authority and can be approached directly without prior internal reporting. The November 2025 amendment extends the same protection, subject to statutory conditions, to direct reports to the police or State Attorney’s Office within their competence. Where those bodies are informed of retaliation or its risk, they must forward the report to the Ombudswoman without delay. Do not generalise this rule to every direct report to any authority. Public disclosure has separate Article 26 conditions.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Identify content, work context and protection conditions. Check the official route and competence without requiring employer permission. Distinguish a regulator’s own internal channel from its other roles. Police or prosecutors must forward without delay to the Ombudsman where the person indicates retaliation or its risk. 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
A person finds a supervisory body, an advice page and the body’s own internal channel. The institution’s name does not give all three the same purpose. The person checks competence and Croatian external-protection rules before proceeding. 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: Is a regulator's internal channel always appropriate for reporting a regulated company? 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.
No. The internal channel may concern work within the regulator itself. Reports about supervised companies need the competent external route. Check the official procedure description and national requirements before referral.
One mistake to avoid is: choosing a form solely by the institution's name.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. An advice page is presented as the sole destination for every report. What check is missing?
The recipient's powers and role must be confirmed. Advice, external receipt, investigation and protection may belong to different bodies. Also check the national conditions for the selected route. User information must help people find the correct procedure without requiring steps that do not exist in law.