What counts as retaliation under the Directive
The Directive lists 15 specific forms of prohibited retaliation, and reverses the burden of proof once a reporter shows they were harmed. Here's the list.
This applies to companies in the EU.
A specific list, not a general principle
Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 doesn't leave "retaliation" as a vague idea for a court to interpret case by case — it lists specific prohibited forms, including threats and attempts, not just retaliation actually carried out:
- Suspension, lay-off, dismissal, or equivalent measures
- Demotion or withholding of promotion
- Transfer of duties, change of workplace location, reduction in wages, or change in working hours
- Withholding of training
- A negative performance assessment or employment reference
- Any disciplinary measure, reprimand, or penalty — including a financial one
- Coercion, intimidation, harassment, or ostracism
- Discrimination or disadvantageous treatment
- Failure to convert a temporary contract into a permanent one, where that was otherwise expected
- Failure to renew, or early termination of, a temporary contract
- Reputational or financial harm, including on social media
- Blacklisting on a sector- or industry-wide basis
- Early termination or cancellation of a contract for goods or services
- Cancellation of a licence or permit
- Psychiatric or medical referrals
The breadth of that list is deliberate — it covers direct harm (dismissal, financial penalties) and quieter, harder-to-prove forms (ostracism, a suddenly colder performance review, a contract that just doesn't get renewed) equally.
The burden of proof runs the other way
This is the part that surprises people who assume a reporter has to prove they were targeted because of their report. Article 21(5) reverses that: once a reporter shows they made a report (or public disclosure) and then suffered a detriment, the detriment is presumed to be retaliation. From that point, it's the other party — the person who took the action — who has to prove it was based on duly justified grounds unrelated to the report. The reporter doesn't have to connect the dots; the person defending the decision does.
That reversal is a large part of why the list above matters in practice. It's not just a compliance checklist — it's the set of actions that, once a report is on record, a company will need to be able to justify affirmatively if a reporter's situation changes for the worse afterward.
Why this makes documentation the real protection
Given that burden of proof, the strongest position isn't just avoiding retaliation — it's being able to show, concretely, why a given decision about someone who reported wasn't retaliatory. A company that can point to a documented, timestamped record of why a performance review happened, or why a role changed, is in a fundamentally different position than one relying on someone's memory months later. See running a case, well for how Provoxis's retaliation-incident tracking and audit trail support that in practice.
Legal basis
- Art. 19, Directive (EU) 2019/1937 — the prohibited forms of retaliation.
- Art. 21(5) — the burden-of-proof reversal once a reporter shows they suffered a detriment after reporting.
Anonymous intake, case management, and the 7-day and 3-month deadlines tracked automatically. Live in under five minutes.