1. Overview of Directive EU/2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting breaches of EU law (Whistleblowers Directive).

CONCLUSIONS OF THE OPINION: Directive EU/2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of individuals who report infringements of Union law (Whistleblowers Directive), an overview. This opinion provides an overview of the Directive, highlighting the most novel points.FIRST.-It is an extraordinarily important Directive, as it tells us who has sovereignty over a particular subject and gives us a single procedure for control and above all, “above all”, a basis for managing conflicts on that subject, by outrageously ignoring the state regulations. State sectoralisation is neither imposed nor allowed within the scope of the Directive.

SECOND.- It is a new generation Directive because unlike the other Directives and Regulations, it organizes and supports the legislation already published, creating a mechanism that will free the Courts from much conflict.

THIRD.- It is a Directive that does not exempt anyone, therefore, it raises the direct and personal responsibility of judges and magistrates, prosecutors, state lawyers, but also of the high institutions of the State and political parties, professional associations and the media, of workers and civil servants, of civilians and the military, from the lowest level to the highest. Any rule that exonerates them will be repealed.

FOURTH.- It is a new generation Directive because it includes almost entirely the third pillar, that of the judiciary, excluding only the deliberative phase of judgments, not the sentencing and enforcement of the judgment.

FIFTH.- It is a new generation directive, which allows for anonymous reporting and reverses the burden of proof. It is up to the defendant to prove that he or she is not responsible for the facts that are alleged. Again, the burden of proof is reversed, and it is the defendant who has the obligation to justify his or her conduct. Even if he is the Head of State.

SIXTH.- It is a directive that creates an ALTERNATIVE CONFLICT RESOLUTION procedure and administrative simplification, since the most common cases can find a place and a solution; and the less common ones a previous evidence phase and a mechanism to straighten out deviant behaviour.

SEVENTH.- It is a directive that affects all the activity of companies and public institutions. It only protects the professional secret of lawyers, doctors and the part of the secret of the judicial deliberations -Justice Administration-. Nevertheless, the exclusion is only for that part of the work of the judiciary, any other action, performance or procedural step IF it is included in the protection of the directive, including the resolutions resulting from those deliberations, such as the instruction, sentence or execution of the same, or those actions, manifestations, training or interests that are specific to the judge; including its election by the CGPJ. And it does not differentiate between civil, criminal, labour, military or administrative jurisdictions.

EIGHTH.- It also includes the Public Prosecutor’s Office in all its aspects, studies, works and documents, whatever their format, and the State Attorney’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with the Directive, they will have to establish a procedure, independent of the Ministry of Justice, to collect, deal with, process, resolve and sanction in a transparent manner the personal responsibilities of their actions for infringement of Union law.

NINTH.- The rule states that protection is extended to all complainants working in the private or public sector (civil servants, interns, contract workers, trainee counsellors, applicants, board members, managers, lawyers…) who have obtained information about infringements in an employment, personal relationship or counselling context, whether present or past,

TENTH.- There are no exempted or privileged institutions for Union law. Nor are there any frontiers, the complainant can choose the channel he feels is most appropriate at any given time, wherever he thinks fit.