Follow-up measures
Follow-up measures are the steps a reporting channel must take under Section 18 HinSchG to assess, investigate and address a reported breach.
Follow-up measures are all the steps an internal or external reporting channel takes after receiving a report in order to assess the validity of the report and to act against the reported breach. Section 18 of the German Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) expressly lists possible follow-up measures: conducting internal investigations and contacting the persons concerned, referring the whistleblower to other competent authorities, closing the procedure for lack of evidence or for other reasons, and forwarding the case to a competent authority for further investigation. The list is not exhaustive; the reporting channel selects the measures that are appropriate and proportionate in each individual case.
The duty to take appropriate follow-up measures is the core task of a reporting channel (Section 13(1) HinSchG). It is closely tied to the statutory deadlines: receipt must be acknowledged within seven days, and no later than three months after the acknowledgement of receipt the whistleblower must be given feedback on the planned or already taken follow-up measures and the reasons for them (Section 17 HinSchG). When investigating internally, the channel must protect the confidentiality of the identity of the whistleblower, the persons concerned and other third parties named, and must respect the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of reprisals.
Compliance officers should document follow-up measures within a structured case-handling process — from the plausibility check through the internal investigation to the closure of the procedure. Audit-proof documentation in accordance with Section 11 HinSchG is required in order to demonstrate to authorities and in audits that the chosen measures were appropriate. A digital whistleblowing system supports this through deadline monitoring, structured case files and a complete log of every processing step.
Legal Basis
Section 18 HinSchG (in conjunction with Sections 13, 17 HinSchG)
Practical Example
A reporting channel receives a tip that invoices for services never rendered are being approved in the procurement department. After an initial plausibility check, the report appears sufficiently substantiated. As a follow-up measure, the designated officer launches an internal investigation, secures the relevant documents, interviews the employees concerned while respecting the presumption of innocence, and involves the legal department where necessary. As the suspicion is confirmed, the company decides to forward the case to the public prosecutor. Every step is documented in the whistleblowing system, and the whistleblower receives timely feedback on the measures taken.