Choice of reporting channel
The choice of reporting channel is the right of whistleblowers under the German Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) to decide freely whether to report a breach through their employer's internal reporting office or directly to an external reporting office.
The free choice of reporting channel is one of the central structural principles of the German Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) and transposes the requirements of the EU Whistleblower Directive (Directive (EU) 2019/1937) into German law. It grants whistleblowers the free choice of whether to direct information about a breach first to an internal reporting office at their employer or directly to an external reporting office. Unlike the original draft of the Directive, which suggested giving precedence to internal reporting, the German legislator deliberately refrained from imposing a mandatory tiered sequence and enshrined a genuine right of choice.
Legally, this right follows from Section 7 (1) HinSchG, under which whistleblowers may choose whether to turn to an internal or an external reporting office. Under Section 7 (3) HinSchG, employers are expected to create incentives for whistleblowers to turn to the internal reporting office before approaching an external one — for example by providing effective, trustworthy and low-threshold internal channels. However, there is no legal obligation to report internally first. Protection against reprisals (Sections 33 et seq. HinSchG) applies regardless of which of the two routes the whistleblower takes, provided the remaining protection requirements are met.
The internal and external reporting channels must be distinguished from public disclosure (Section 32 HinSchG): disclosure is protected only under narrower conditions and therefore does not constitute a freely selectable third route. In practice, the right of choice means that an attractive, trustworthy internal reporting channel is the most effective way for companies to ensure that reports can first be clarified internally before supervisory authorities or the public become involved. The decision on the route, however, lies solely with the whistleblower; any obstruction of the report or pressure in favour of a particular channel is unlawful.
Legal Basis
Section 7 (1) and (3) HinSchG; Art. 7, Art. 10 Directive (EU) 2019/1937
Practical Example
An employee in the purchasing department of a mid-sized company observes signs of bribery payments to a supplier. Unsure whether the internal reporting office operates with sufficient independence, she turns directly to the Federal external reporting office at the Federal Office of Justice. The compliance officer later learns that no internal report was made. He may neither reproach the employee nor impose any disadvantage on her: under the right of choice in Section 7 (1) HinSchG, the direct external report was lawful and fully protected by the prohibition of reprisals. Instead of sanctioning, the company should strengthen trust in the internal channel through demonstrable independence, confidentiality and transparent case handling.