Module Learning Objective

recognise the effect of personal connections on impartiality

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: recognise the effect of personal connections on impartiality. 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. Conflicts can exist without proven corruption. Distinguish public-official restrictions from private policy. We use the law in force on 1 October 2026. Gifts have different categories and conditions; one amount is not universal permission.

Family, financial and personal connections may influence decisions. Section 1 defines public-official conflicts and relatives; check status and specific restrictions too. A broader policy is not the exact statutory category list.

Apply the following rule: The law covers work-related information about breaches that may harm the public interest. It is not limited to the Directive’s listed EU-law fields. Purely personal grievances and knowingly false information are excluded; sections 2–3 also contain specific limits.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Identify role and connection. Check sections 4,11 and 21. Distinguish legal restriction and chosen risk measures. Obtain independent assessment before further participation if needed. 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 committee member has a family connection to a bidder. Before evaluation, check the exact relationship, role and restriction and arrange the required response. 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: Does a conflict always prove corruption? 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. It identifies a risk or restricted situation requiring handling. Establishing a particular breach is separate.

One mistake to avoid is: equating a conflict with guilt.

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

Check work context, possible public-interest harm, belief in truth and statutory conditions. A category does not replace sections 1–3 assessment. A personal complaint may also contain a public-interest breach; assess facts rather than title. Record reasons and necessary clarification.

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