Forty out of one hundred are well grounded - The Ombudsman on handling public interest disclosures

The new system of handling public interest disclosures, introduced as of 1 January 2014, is working in accordance with the regal regulations and has met prior expectations – in order to encourage the disclosure of information of general interest and protect the whistle-blowers, the relevant act delegates the operation of the new system to the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. Through such activities, the Ombudsman and his Office contribute to the fight against corruption. The experience of recent months shows that public interest disclosures may uncover problems of different character as well.

A public interest disclosure draws attention to a circumstance whose remedying or elimination would serve the interests of the society as a whole. The new regulation is aimed at supporting whistle‑blowers, protecting and, if requested, confidentially handling and ensuring the safety of their personal data. These are important stipulations because they make the fight against corruption more efficient. Whistle‑blowers may be bolder in drawing attention to corruption cases threatening society if they can be sure that they are properly protected from the risk of any retaliation and that their submissions are duly investigated. The core element of this system is the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, heading public trust polls conducted among citizens, who acts as an intermediary in handling public interest disclosure cases.

The Ombudsman operates a strictly protected electronic system for accepting and registering public interest disclosures. Citizens may submit their public interest disclosures personally at the Office's client service centre or Online on the office's homepage (www.ajbh.hu), with or without access portal identification. Whistle‑blowers must provide their name and address; however, they may request that their data should not be made available but to the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and his Office, for maintaining contact. If the whistle‑blower makes such a request, the competent authority receives the documents anonymized so that the whistle‑blower could not be identified in any way.

Up till 30 October 2014, the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights received 270 public interest submissions. The investigations conducted by the Office show that forty out of one hundred were well‑grounded. They were mainly corruption cases, VAT‑ and other tax evasions, complaints against the tax administration's proceedings, environmental, waste dumping, construction, transportation and other administrative issues. Acting on these submissions, in most cases the Ombudsman turned to National Tax and Customs Administration, various government and mayors' offices, police departments, environmental authorities and the National Public Health and Medical Officer Service; these so called proceeding authorities have all taken the necessary measures.

The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights may also investigate the way public interest disclosures are handled. He may order such an investigation ex officio; whistle‑blowers may also initiate an investigation if they find that their submissions are not thoroughly investigated by the proceeding authority, if they do not agree with the investigation's conclusion or if their submissions have been found ungrounded. If the Commissioner finds any impropriety in connection with the handling of a public interest disclosure, he may give recommendations to the authority concerned or to the organ supervising its activities. For instance, acting on a complaint, the Commissioner launched an investigation into the National Tax and Customs Administration's practice of missing deadlines and often failing to give proper information; he requested the President of the NTCA to take the necessary measures in order to prevent further problems. There were relatively many tax‑related public interest disclosures submitted; in addition, the Ombudsman also launched an ex officio investigation into the way the tax administration handles public interest disclosures.

Another "benefit" of the Ombudsman's activities related to public interest disclosures is that other anomalies have also been discovered. For instance, the State Audit Office was unable to launch and conduct an investigation into a public interest disclosure in connection with the utilization of public funds and the local governments' asset management within the deadline stipulated by the law, as the act regulating the State Audit Office's activities is not in accordance with the act on complaints and public interest disclosures. The Ombudsman initiated the elimination of this conflict between those two acts.