The correct external route

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to assess grounds for direct reporting. 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. The Prosecutor’s Office is the competent authority under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Investigation of particular breaches may belong elsewhere. Distinguish formal reporting, advice and an employer’s technical channel.

Article 4 includes possible management involvement, serious danger and ineffective internal follow-up as direct-reporting circumstances. Public disclosure has separate conditions.

Apply the following rule: The Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania performs the competent-authority functions. Direct reporting follows Article 4 conditions, such as serious danger, possible management involvement, a non-functioning channel or ineffective action. Article 4(5) applies on learning of possible indications of a criminal offence. Public disclosure follows the separate Article 4(10) conditions. A software provider is not the Prosecutor’s Office.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Connect facts with grounds and check official submission routes. Do not require general employer permission or equate publication with institutional reporting. 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.

At each step, compare the information available with what is still needed for the decision. Arrange continuity when the designated worker is absent. A substitute receives only the information needed for the task, and their actions must remain verifiable.

Mark an unanswered question as a fact to verify. Identify who could confirm it and what access they actually need. A correct exercise choice alone does not show that the reasoning is understood. If the answer depends on an additional fact, state that condition explicitly.

For the workplace task, name the person who can approve the change and the person who will check that it works. Produce a concrete verifiable action, rather than only a promise to follow rules. Check effects on access rights and user information. Record questions that your organisation still needs to resolve.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A report concerns management controlling the internal process. The person considers prosecutors because of conflict and pressure risks. 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: Must an employer reply always come first? 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. Assess direct-reporting grounds and the rule on indications of crime. A universally mandatory internal sequence misstates article 4.

One mistake to avoid is: making internal reporting an absolute prerequisite.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A worker is told that reporting to the Prosecutor’s Office requires the manager’s permission. Is that correct?

The Act does not impose such general employer permission. Check the direct-reporting ground under Article 4 and the official submission method. Possible management involvement, a non-functioning channel and ineffective action are circumstances requiring individual assessment. The advice line explains the procedure, but seeking advice is not itself submitting a report. Public disclosure has separate conditions.