Which breaches may be covered

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to distinguish channel intake from statutory protection. 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. Protection requires statutory conditions. The channel may accept broader concerns, but receipt alone does not confer every safeguard. Assess work context, public interest, belief in the information’s truth and the reporting route.

Latvian law covers any breach harming public interest, with particular fields listed in section 3. It is broader than merely the Directive’s EU-law list. Purely personal grievances are excluded, but one submission can contain different issues.

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

Read the conduct rather than its category. Identify possible public-interest harm, work context and exclusions. Seek proportionate clarification of material gaps. New information may require reasoned reclassification. 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

One report concerns environmental requirements; another holiday scheduling. Later the second alleges a change because of earlier protected reporting. 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 the form heading determine protection? 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, work context, public interest and protection conditions decide. New facts may also require retaliation assessment.

One mistake to avoid is: automatically recognising every submission as protected.

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.