This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
French to English: News Article - Whistle-blowing General field: Bus/Financial Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - French Le Conseil d’Etat plaide pour une meilleure protection des lanceurs d’alerte
Le scandale des « Panama papers », l’affaire du Mediator comme le démarchage illégal des fortunes françaises par UBS ou les privilèges fiscaux accordés par le Luxembourg à certaines grandesentreprises n’auraient jamais éclaté au grand jour si une personne isolée n’avait pas décidé de tirer le signal d’alarme. Au risque de compromettre sa carrière professionnelle. Certains de ces lanceurs d’alerte se retrouvent en effet poursuivis en justice par leurs anciens employeurs. Une étude réalisée par le Conseil d’Etat à la demande du premier ministre et rendue publique mercredi 13 avril recommande que la France se dote de meilleurs outils pour assurer une efficacité aux alertes lancées, un encadrement pour éviter les abus et délations malveillantes et une réelle protection de ces vigies civiques.
Malgré six lois en neuf ans qui ont cherché à les protéger à des degrés divers, on est loin du compte. « Il en résulte un manque de cohérence, des lacunes en matière de procédure et, au final, peu de protection effective des lanceurs d’alerte », constate Jean-Marc Sauvé, le vice-président du Conseil d’Etat.
Définir un socle commun
Les lois ont en particulier omis, à l’exception de celle sur le renseignement de 2015, la question du secret professionnel. Or, le viol de ce secret (médical, fiscal, lié à la défense nationale, etc.) est pénalement répréhensible dans de nombreux domaines. « Si la loi ne précise pas les dérogations au secret professionnel, il n’y aura pas de lanceurs d’alerte », prévient M. Sauvé. C’est donc par des lois sectorielles que le législateur devrait définir, secret par secret, quelles sont les exceptions ou, à défaut, les personnes habilitées à recevoir une alerte sans lever le secret professionnel.
Mais auparavant, c’est bien la définition d’un socle commun par la loi qui figure au premier rang des quinze propositions approuvées par l’assemblée générale du Conseil d’Etat. Le groupe de travail qui a réalisé cette étude a d’abord tenu à s’entendre sur une définition précise du lanceur d’alerte. C’est « un acteur civique qui signale, de bonne foi, librement et dans l’intérêt général, des manquements graves à la loi ou des risques graves menaçant des intérêts publics ou privés, dont il n’est pas l’auteur ». Il peut être salarié, collaborateur occasionnel ou extérieur. Une définition qui a ainsi conduit à rejeter fermement, à une voix discordante près, l’idée de rémunération des lanceurs d’alerte. « On ne fait pas un geste civique pour de l’argent », tranche M. Sauvé. D’ailleurs, le groupe de travail, présidé par Emmanuelle Prada Bordenave et auquel ont participé des représentants d’associations comme Transparency International ou la fondation Sciences citoyennes, parle d’« alerte éthique ». S’inspirant de ce qui a été mis en place au Royaume-Uni et en Irlande, il préconise des mécanismes pour favoriser en priorité l’alerte interne à l’administration ou à l’entreprise concernée.
Le Conseil d’Etat estime que le canal hiérarchique ou un canal interne spécifique (déontologue, service d’inspection…) sont les mieux à même pour prendre en compte rapidement et efficacement une alerte émanant d’un collaborateur. A condition que le dénonciateur soit protégé (comme la personne éventuellement visée tant que les faits ne sont pas établis) et averti des suites données à son information. Cette solution interne ne semble pas adaptée aux cas où la fraude est organisée en système, comme dans l’affaire des prothèses mammaires de la société PIP ou dans celle des logiciels antipollution truqués chez Volkswagen.
Un portail unique
« Si et seulement si un tel recours [interne] se heurte à l’absence de réponse apportée dans un délai raisonnable ou s’avère impraticable, un canal externe pourra alors être choisi », note le rapport. Mais pour le Conseil d’Etat, il ne s’agit pas ici de divulguer des informations aux médias ni au public qui ne peuvent être alertés« qu’en dernier recours ». « L’alerte externe » est destinée aux autorités administratives compétentes (Agence du médicament, Autorité des marchés financiers, future Agence de prévention et de détection de la corruption prévue dans le projet de loi Sapin II, etc.), aux ordres professionnels ou à la justice. Il est proposé, pour faciliter l’accès à l’institution compétente, de passer par un portail unique qui serait assuré par la Commission nationale de la déontologie et des alertes en matière de santé publique et d’environnement prévue par la loi Blandin de 2013 (et toujours pas installée !).
Pour mieux protéger les lanceurs d’alerte contre les velléités de représailles, le Conseil d’Etat propose de lister très largement ce que ces dernières pourraient être, comme le non-renouvellement d’un CDD, espérant ainsi les bannir. Surtout, il propose d’étendre la compétence du Défenseur des droits, qui pourrait être saisi par les personnes concernées sans attendre l’issue des procédures judiciaires.
Quelques-unes des propositions de cette étude pourraient être déjà intégrées dans le projet de loi Sapin II sur la corruption qui viendra en discussion à l’Assemblée nationale d’ici à l’été. Mais d’autres lois seront nécessaires. Le développement d’une culture de l’alerte en France reste un travail de longue haleine.
Translation - English State Council calls for better protection for whistle-blowers
The “Panama papers” scandal, the Mediator affair, UBS’s recruitment of wealthy customers in France by offering to aid tax evasion and the tax privileges granted by Luxembourg to certain large companies would never have seen the light of day if not for a series of isolated individuals who decided to sound the alarm. At the risk of compromising their professional careers certain whistle-blowers find themselves actually being legally pursued by their former employers. A study carried out by the State Council at the request of the Prime Minister and made public on Wednesday 13th April recommends that France makes use of the best mechanisms to ensure that whistle-blowing is effective, providing a framework for stamping out abuse and malicious accusations and thus providing a true protection of civic watchdogs.
Despite six laws in nine years that sought to protect whistle-blowers to varying degrees, a solution is far from being realised. “This has resulted from a lack of coherence, gaps in procedural methods, and finally, little effective protection for whistle-blowers” states Jean-Marc Sauvé, the Vice President of the State Council.
Defining common ground
With the exception of those passed in 2015, these laws were silent on the issue of confidentiality (or non-disclosure). As of now, revealing any such information (whether medical, concerning taxation, national defence or other matters) is considered a theft with penal consequences in many areas. “If the law fails to specify instances where professional confidentiality is no longer privileged, there will be no whistle-blowers” warns Mr Sauvé. It is therefore through sectoral laws that the legislator must define the specific exceptions to its norms of professional confidentiality, or, failing this, it must confirm persons to whom a whistle-blower may disclose information without thereby being deemed to have broken confidentiality.
But first and foremost, it is the legal definition of a common ground for whistle-blowing that featured at the first stage in fifteen approved propositions by the general assembly of the State Council. The working group that created this study had firstly committed to agree on a precise definition of a whistle-blower. This is defined as “a civic actor that voices, in good faith, freely and in the general interest, serious violations of the law or serious risks threatening public or private interests, of which he is not the author”. This person could be a full-time employee or a hired consultant, or come from outside the organisation. A notion that also necessitated firm rejection, as being highly inappropriate, was the idea of rewarding or paying whistle-blowers. “One doesn’t act in the public interest for money” confirms Mr Sauvé. In any case, the working group, chaired by Emmanuelle Prada Bordenave which includes representatives from associations such as International Transparency and the Foundation of Science Citizens, speaks of “ethical whistle-blowing”. Inspired by what has been implemented in the United Kingdom and in Ireland, it recommends a list of mechanisms favouring above all internal whistle-blowing within the organisation or the business concerned.
The State Council considers upward reporting lines or a special internal channel (such as a compliance officer or inspection service) to be the best mechanisms for quickly and effectively dealing with an instance of whistle-blowing coming from someone within the organisation. This is viable and effective on condition that the whistle-blower is protected (as too is the person subject to complaint, until such point as the facts are established) and is kept informed of actions taken as a result of the information given. This internal solution does not seem to be applicable in cases where fraud exists in the system, as in the cases of breast implants at PIP and anti-pollution software at Volkswagen.
A unique portal
“Only if serious [internal] recourse is likely to manifest itself in the absence of a response given within a reasonable time-scale or if proving this would be impractical, external channels can be considered”, notes the spokesperson. But for the State Council, it’s not a question of revealing information to either the media or members of the public who should be alerted “only as a last resort”. “External whistle-blowing” is reserved for competent administrative authorities (the Agency of Medication, the Authority on Financial Markets, and the future Agency for the Prevention and Detection of Corruption as defined in the “Sapin II” bill, etc.), following professional orders or according to the law. It is proposed, to facilitate access to the right competent authority, for enquiries to pass through a unique portal that would be overseen by the National Compliance Commission to include incidents of whistle-blowing in matters of public health and the environment as defined by the Blandin bill of 2013 (which is yet to be passed!).
In order to better protect whistle-blowers against acts of retaliation the State Council proposes to extensively list what these acts could be, such as the non-renewal of a fixed term contract, in the hope that in so doing any retaliation can be eradicated. Above all, it proposes to expand the jurisdiction of the independent state body (Defender of Rights), who can be called upon by people involved without the need to wait for legal proceedings to have begun.
One of the propositions of this study could be already integrated in the “Sapin II” bill concerning corruption which will be confirmed during discussions at the National Assembly by the end of this summer. But additional laws will be necessary in future. The development of a culture of whistle-blowing in France in the meantime remains a long term struggle.
More
Less
Translation education
Bachelor's degree - Kings College London
Experience
Years of experience: 9. Registered at ProZ.com: Apr 2016.
I am based in the United Kingdom and provide translation services from French to English. I have 10 years’ experience working in the corporate sector across a broad range of industries including manufacturing, retail, automotive and leisure and have been translating on a part-time basis since 2014.
My academic background is in Law and after graduating from Kings College in London, I worked for a period in France during which time I enjoyed cultural immersion whilst living with a French family. My passion for the French language was cemented during this time. Although my career has been spent working in corporate business I have been able to turn my hand to translating as a result of the language skills I acquired. Exposure to various industries in my professional life has equipped me with terminology and industry knowledge that has proved invaluable when undertaking translating work.
On my return to the UK, I enrolled on the graduate scheme with Allied Irish Bank (UK) before moving to Barclays Corporate, during which time I worked in both client-facing and internal roles in multiple industries. I left the banking industry in 2012 to pursue a career in leisure most recently working as Commercial Director at a UK regional theatre. In this role, whilst being primarily responsible for the financial viability of the operation, I was frequently engaged in writing and editing copy and have been able to use the analytical skills gained during my law degree to write compelling copy text for external publications as well as internal reports. Also being a linguist, I translated theatrical text into French and recorded French voiceovers for one of the theatre’s internal productions.
I have been an associate of Flower Consulting since 2014 working sporadically on translation exercises throughout this time. I now provide full-time French-English translation services specialising in the following areas:
• texts of a complex legal nature
• financial documents - general business, banking and accounts
• marketing for the leisure industry including copywriting
I enjoy working from my home in Burton-upon-Trent in Staffordshire where I am kept company by three cats.
Expertise