- Whistleblowers report grievances internally or externally; many companies in Switzerland establish reporting systems and have formal whistleblower policies.
- The A._____ Group commissioned the auditing firm C. as an external whistleblower service provider to receive and investigate reports.
- The lower court dismissed the defendant’s application for protective measures as the defendant did not provide any credible evidence of a threat to interests worthy of protection.
3.1 Whistleblowers are persons who draw attention to grievances within their organization. If the grievances are reported to institutions outside the own organization (supervisory authorities, media, etc.), one speaks of “external” whistleblowing. If a report is made to an office within the organization in which grievances occur, one speaks of “internal” whistleblowing ([…]). Many companies, including in Switzerland, set up reporting systems for whistleblowers. The A._____ Group has issued a Whistleblower Policy (Urk. 6÷17÷3, in English and German version; “Signalgeberpolitik”). The policy applies worldwide to all employees of A. […]. The business and audit firm C. has been commissioned to receive and investigate whistleblower reports. C. is the whistleblower service provider [WSP] of the defendant […].
4.2 The lower court came to the conclusion that the defendant had not substantiated any threat to interests worthy of protection. The procedural request of the defendant (for the issuance of protective measures) had to be rejected already under this aspect (Urk. 2 p. 7, E. 5.1.4). It further considered that the plaintiff had a “fundamental interest” in inspecting document 6/19 (including annexes). The request of the Defendant was also to be rejected under the aspect of the higher weighted interests of the Plaintiff. For the reasons stated, the contingent and subcontingent applications were also to be rejected (document 2 p. 7 ff.).