Abstract
The decision in the case Halet v Luxembourg can be considered quite crucial in the field of whistleblowing, as it significantly redefines the conditions and procedure for granting protection to whistleblowers within the meaning of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights while expanding the range of cases where protection can be granted. However, the consequence of this decision is also a significant reduction of predictability, for both the whistleblowers themselves as well as for the persons whose conduct is reported.
This paper aims to discuss the decision itself, to define its rudimentary argumentative elements and to discuss issues arising from the decision, as well as the possible effects that the decision may have on the application practice.