When may a reporter contact the Whistleblower House?

External reporting is also permitted without prior internal reporting

An employee may in most cases report directly to the House for Whistleblowers, even if no internal report has yet been made. The directive that underpins the Dutch reporting system is based on two equivalent routes: an internal report to your own organization, and an external report to a designated authority. The choice between them lies with the reporter; an obligation to report internally first before external reporting is permitted is not set out in the directive.

In practice, internal reporting is often recommended as a first step, simply because a breach is then resolved closer to the source and the organization gets the opportunity to address it. But that is a practical recommendation, not a legal requirement. Anyone who has no confidence in the internal procedure, who fears retaliation, or who has a matter that is better suited to a sector-specific supervisor, can report externally directly. In addition to the House for Whistleblowers, there are sector-specific reporting channels which, depending on the subject matter of the report, also provide an option — for example at financial supervisors. Which route is most appropriate in a specific case depends on the subject matter and the preference of the reporter; the law itself does not impose any sequence.

This follows from Articles 10 and 11 of the directive

Article 10 of directive (EU) 2019/1937 provides that member states ensure that a reporter has access to an external reporting channel without requiring an internal report to be made first. Article 11 of the same directive requires member states to actually establish those external reporting channels and to designate which authorities perform that role. In the Netherlands, that role is assigned to the House for Whistleblowers, supplemented by sector-specific supervisors for matters falling within their specific domain.