The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) has included civil servant whistleblowers in the protective ambit of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article argues that the Court should revisit its approach to proportionality in such cases. When determining whether a restriction to a civil servant whistleblower's free speech was necessary in a democratic society, the Court weighs what the article identifies as the quasi-public watchdog function of whistleblowers (namely their role in imparting information on matters of public concern) against their duties and responsibilities as civil servants. In some instances, the Court gives primacy to whistleblowers’ duties of loyalty to the government over their contribution to the accountability of public bodies. The article challenges this approach on the basis that it fails to adequately consider the key justification that underpins the Court's recognition of whistleblowing as speech, namely the audience interest in receiving the information the whistleblower discloses. The article argues that the Court should give primacy to the watchdog function of whistleblowers. It concludes by making suggestions on how the ECtHR can adopt a more principled approach to proportionality in whistleblowing cases.

欧洲人权法院（ECtHR 或法院）已将公务员举报人纳入《欧洲人权公约》第 10 条的保护范围。文章认为，法院应重新审视其在此类案件中处理相称性的方法。在确定在民主社会中是否有必要限制公务员举报人的言论自由时，法院权衡了文章认定的举报人的准公共监督职能（即他们在传播公众关注的问题的信息方面的作用）与他们的作为公务员的职责和义务。在某些情况下，法院优先考虑举报人对政府的忠诚义务，而不是他们对公共机构问责制的贡献。这篇文章质疑这种方法，因为它没有充分考虑支持法院承认举报为言论的关键理由，即听众对接收举报人披露的信息的兴趣。文章认为，法院应优先考虑举报人的监督职能。最后，就欧洲人权法院如何在举报案件中采用更具原则性的相称性方法提出建议。