Module Learning Objective

justify routing of different cases

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: justify routing of different cases. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. Initial classification helps choose a procedure and prevents unjustified delay. One event can engage several regimes. Assessment may change with new information. Referral does not authorise unrestricted sharing.

Consistent questions reduce arbitrariness but must account for differing facts. Content, work connection, public interest, risk and conflicts matter. Separate statutory protection from broader organisational intake choices.

Apply the following rule: Reports can go to competent authorities or through the contact point and specified organisations. Since 1 March 2026 KNAB is the contact point. It advises, refers, supervises compliance and examines cases where no competent institution can be determined. It does not replace every sector authority’s powers. Internal reporting is encouraged only under section 5(4); public disclosure has separate section 4 conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Apply the same questions, record gaps and justify next steps. Identify permitted recipients and avoid unjustified deadline delay. Reassess conclusions after clarification. 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

Examples involve an invoice error, possibly tailored tender conditions and threats after reporting. Assess examination, urgent action and clarification separately. 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: May all three be closed with one automatic reply? 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. Facts and risks differ. A common framework supports different justified actions but does not replace substance or required communication.

One mistake to avoid is: using one reply for materially different cases.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team treats KNAB as the only investigator for every sector. What needs clarification?

KNAB has performed contact-point functions since March 2026, but the competent institution examines the particular breach. The contact point helps identify it and also examines statutory cases where competence cannot be determined. Check the current official route. A private software provider does not become a competent public authority.

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.