Plausibility check
The plausibility check is the first substantive assessment of an incoming report to determine whether the alleged breach appears credible and falls within the remit of the internal reporting office.
The plausibility check is the first processing step taken by an internal reporting office after a report is received. It does not establish whether the reported facts are actually true, but rather whether the report is coherent and comprehensible (credibility) and whether it concerns a breach that falls within the material scope of the German Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) and for which the reporting office is responsible. The plausibility check therefore stands at the very beginning of the follow-up measures prescribed by § 18 HinSchG.
If the check shows that the reported breach does not fall within the scope of the HinSchG or that the reporting office is not competent, the procedure can be closed or the report can be forwarded to a competent body. If, on the other hand, the report appears credible, the reporting office initiates further follow-up measures, such as an internal investigation, consultation with the reporting person, or referral to the competent authorities. The plausibility check thus serves to allocate the reporting office's limited resources appropriately and to filter out manifestly unfounded or abusive reports.
When carrying out the check, the reporting office must always observe its overriding duties: the confidentiality requirement under § 8 HinSchG protects the identity of both the reporting and the affected persons, and the statutory deadlines must be met. Receipt must be confirmed within seven days, and feedback on planned or implemented follow-up measures must be provided no later than three months after the acknowledgement of receipt. The plausibility check must be documented carefully to ensure that the decisions taken remain traceable.
Legal Basis
§ 18 HinSchG in conjunction with § 8 HinSchG, § 13 HinSchG
Practical Example
The internal reporting office of a mid-sized company receives a report via the anonymous reporting channel alleging that a head of procurement has repeatedly accepted gifts from a supplier and, in return, agreed to inflated prices. The compliance officer first assesses plausibility: with corruption and breach of trust, the described facts concern a qualifying breach within the meaning of the HinSchG, the named persons and events are specific and free of contradictions, and the reporting office is responsible. As the report appears credible, she documents the result, confirms receipt to the reporting person within the deadline, and initiates an internal investigation as the next follow-up measure.