The article is devoted to the delicate problem of disclosing information on illegal or fraudulent activities of private or state organizations, officials, as well as on their violation of moral principles. Such information is synonymous with “whistleblowing” and often carries risks for informants. A number of European states have taken protective measures against persons reporting such information. However, on a daily level, “informants” are often condemned by public opinion and even become victims of persecution.

The author analyzes the legal positions of the European Union (Directive 2019) and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on the problems of whistleblowing. The general position is that whistleblowing, if justified, objectively strengthens accountability and the fight against corruption. A broader definition of freedom of expression is given, which applies not only to journalists who expose corruption and violations of moral principles, but also to all those who publicly express their opinions, guided by the public interest. The state has a positive obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression.

The protection of freedom of expression in the workplace is considered separately when it comes to the disclosure of confidential information. The ECtHR has repeatedly noted that mutual trust and good faith, which should prevail in the context of an employment contract, do not imply an absolute duty of loyalty to the employer and the latter’s discretion to restrict the freedom of expression of employees. At the same time, the positions of the Court on the issues of officials’ obligations to keep state secrets when freedom of expression is objectively limited are given.

It is concluded that the definition of general rules for the protection of the right to freedom of expression presupposes the flexibility necessary to adapt to a variety of specific situations.