Vågar man blåsa i visslan? En kritisk granskning av skyddet i visselblåsarlagen
(2025) LAGF03 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Hur starkt är egentligen skyddet för den som blåser i visslan? Uppsatsen undersöker visselblåsarlagen, lag (2021:890) om skydd för personer som rapporterar om missförhållanden och om lagen uppfyller sitt syfte i praktiken: att kunna blåsa i visslan utan risk för repressalier.
Bakgrunden till uppsatsen är att den första rättsliga prövningen av lagen ägde rum i november 2023, när Uppsala tingsrätt gav sin bedömning på huruvida en plastikkirurg utsatts för repressalier efter upprepad intern rapportering om allvarliga brister inom verksamheten. Talan avslogs. Att bli arbetsbefriad och omplacerad hade andra motiv enligt arbetsgivaren, än att detta berodde på visselblåsningen. Det menade även tingsrätten. Fallet väcker centrala frågor om hur... (More) - Hur starkt är egentligen skyddet för den som blåser i visslan? Uppsatsen undersöker visselblåsarlagen, lag (2021:890) om skydd för personer som rapporterar om missförhållanden och om lagen uppfyller sitt syfte i praktiken: att kunna blåsa i visslan utan risk för repressalier.
Bakgrunden till uppsatsen är att den första rättsliga prövningen av lagen ägde rum i november 2023, när Uppsala tingsrätt gav sin bedömning på huruvida en plastikkirurg utsatts för repressalier efter upprepad intern rapportering om allvarliga brister inom verksamheten. Talan avslogs. Att bli arbetsbefriad och omplacerad hade andra motiv enligt arbetsgivaren, än att detta berodde på visselblåsningen. Det menade även tingsrätten. Fallet väcker centrala frågor om hur starkt och effektivt skyddet i visselblåsarlagen faktiskt är i praktiken.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att granska visselblåsarlagen och skyddet lagen ger. Med utgångspunkt i den rättsdogmatiska metoden baseras uppsatsen på främst lagtext och förarbeten och till viss del används doktrin för att tolka rättskällorna.
Slutsatsen är att lagens skydd, trots det breda omfånget och den normativa avsikten, brister i praktiken. Kraven för att bevisa repressalier är högt och påverkas av arbetsrättsliga principer som arbetsgivarens arbetsledningsrätt och lojalitetsplikten. Det saknas tydliga sanktioner som avskräcker arbetsgivaren om denne överträder lagen. Idag finns ingen praxis på området och trots att man säger ”den nya visselblåsarlagen”, är den inte så ny längre.
Uppsatsen belyser behovet av rättsutvecklingen på området. Den väcker frågor om balansen mellan lagstiftningen och det faktiska utfallet. Visselblåsning är ett område som måste utvecklas, för att kunna bli ett tillförlitligt tillvägagångssätt. (Less) - Abstract
- How strong is the protection for whistleblowers? This paper examines the Whistleblowing Act, the Swedish Act (2021:890) on the Protection of Persons Reporting Wrongdoing and whether it fulfils its purpose in practice: enabling individuals to report misconduct without fear of reprisals.
The background to this paper is that the first judicial review of the law took place in November 2023, when Uppsala district court gave its judgement on whether a plastic surgeon had been subjected to reprisals after repeated internal reporting of serious shortcomings in the business. The entire case was dismissed. According to the employer, being exempt from work and reassigned had other motives than the whistleblowing. This was also the district... (More) - How strong is the protection for whistleblowers? This paper examines the Whistleblowing Act, the Swedish Act (2021:890) on the Protection of Persons Reporting Wrongdoing and whether it fulfils its purpose in practice: enabling individuals to report misconduct without fear of reprisals.
The background to this paper is that the first judicial review of the law took place in November 2023, when Uppsala district court gave its judgement on whether a plastic surgeon had been subjected to reprisals after repeated internal reporting of serious shortcomings in the business. The entire case was dismissed. According to the employer, being exempt from work and reassigned had other motives than the whistleblowing. This was also the district court’s opinion. The case raises key questions about how robust and effective the protection in the Whistleblowing Act is in practice.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the Whistleblowing Act and the protection the act provides. Based on a legal dogmatic method, this paper is primarily based on the text of a law and legislative history and to some extent, doctrine is used to interpret the sources of law.
The conclusion is that the act’s protection, despite its scope and normative intent, is lacking in practice. The standard of proof required to prove reprisals is high and is influenced by labour law principles such as the employer’s right to direct work and the duty of loyalty. There are no clear sanctions that would deter employers if they violate the law. Today, there is no case law in this area and despite being called “the new Whistleblowing Act”, it is not that new anymore.
The paper highlights the need for legal developments in this area. It raises questions about the balance between legislation and the actual outcome. Whistleblowing is an area that needs to be developed, to become a reliable approach. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9190766
- author
- Jarl, Mikaela LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- arbetsrätt, visselblåsarlagen, visselblåsning, visselblåsare
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9190766
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-23 13:01:41
- date last changed
- 2025-06-23 13:01:41
@misc{9190766,
abstract = {{How strong is the protection for whistleblowers? This paper examines the Whistleblowing Act, the Swedish Act (2021:890) on the Protection of Persons Reporting Wrongdoing and whether it fulfils its purpose in practice: enabling individuals to report misconduct without fear of reprisals.
The background to this paper is that the first judicial review of the law took place in November 2023, when Uppsala district court gave its judgement on whether a plastic surgeon had been subjected to reprisals after repeated internal reporting of serious shortcomings in the business. The entire case was dismissed. According to the employer, being exempt from work and reassigned had other motives than the whistleblowing. This was also the district court’s opinion. The case raises key questions about how robust and effective the protection in the Whistleblowing Act is in practice.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the Whistleblowing Act and the protection the act provides. Based on a legal dogmatic method, this paper is primarily based on the text of a law and legislative history and to some extent, doctrine is used to interpret the sources of law.
The conclusion is that the act’s protection, despite its scope and normative intent, is lacking in practice. The standard of proof required to prove reprisals is high and is influenced by labour law principles such as the employer’s right to direct work and the duty of loyalty. There are no clear sanctions that would deter employers if they violate the law. Today, there is no case law in this area and despite being called “the new Whistleblowing Act”, it is not that new anymore.
The paper highlights the need for legal developments in this area. It raises questions about the balance between legislation and the actual outcome. Whistleblowing is an area that needs to be developed, to become a reliable approach.}},
author = {{Jarl, Mikaela}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Vågar man blåsa i visslan? En kritisk granskning av skyddet i visselblåsarlagen}},
year = {{2025}},
}