Module Learning Objective

identify the case’s framework and first duties

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: identify the case’s framework and first duties. 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 connects course skills. Follow receipt, independent assessment, examination, communication and prevention improvements. Conclusions remain within verified facts, while protection conditions need their own assessment.

A fictional Latvian organisation receives work-related information about tailored procurement conditions. Identify organisational role, procedure and facts. Procurement alone does not determine protection. Receipt, initial decision and confidentiality need correct arrangements.

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

Record arrival and restrict access. Check acknowledgement and legal framework. List known facts, avoid automatic routing to the named manager and identify the initial assessor and next event. 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 report alleges supplier-favouring conditions and gives a document version, but influence is unverified. The recipient registers it and prepares 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 precedes 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, independent assignment and fact-checking. Acknowledgement and report existence do not prove favouritism.

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

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.