distinguish case follow-up from institutional reporting
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will consolidate a skill: distinguish case follow-up from institutional reporting. 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. The Whistleblower Protection Office, prosecutors and administrative authorities have different powers. Reporting, advice, protection applications and statistics use their own procedures. The course does not assume that every company must submit the same annual return.
After reporting there may be clarification requests, referrals and outcome information. Separately, some entities have statistical or administrative duties. Each flow needs its own source, owner and timetable. Absence of a national reporting duty does not prevent proportionate, restricted internal quality indicators.
Apply the following rule: At least one reporting method must be continuously accessible. Under section 10(2), an external person may receive and acknowledge reports; examination may be outsourced under the stated conditions for a non-public employer with fewer than 250 employees. An internal responsible person remains necessary. A section 12 application to suspend an employment act has a 15-day deadline from learning of it; this remedy differs from formal protected status. Portuguese RGPC is not Slovak law. Prevention methods are recommendations unless a specific applicable duty is identified.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Classify requests by purpose and competence. Confirm authenticity, deadline and necessary data. Record the response and keep evidence. For statistics, define consistent categories with sufficient aggregation. For individual cases, use the designated secure method. Review official contacts and procedure versions periodically. 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
An organisation receives one request for annual figures and another for case clarification. The team separates them. Aggregated figures follow the relevant reporting duty, while authorised staff assess case documents and transmit appropriately after verifying the request. 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: Should annual indicators and individual case documents use the same distribution list? 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. Distribution must match purpose, competence and need to know. Aggregated reporting may have different recipients. Record the sharing basis and prevent statistical procedures from exposing identities.
One mistake to avoid is: turning management reporting into general distribution of whistleblowing cases.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team presents all preventive tools as mandatory for every organisation. How should it revise the explanation?
Separate Slovak legal duties, their scope and recommended practice. Public procurement and the departmental anti-corruption methodology have their own applicability. Portuguese RGPC is not automatically transferred. For recommendations state the risk, owner and effectiveness evidence; for a claimed duty identify the applicable legal basis.