The majority of the judges in the Supreme Court (four out of five) concluded that the email was a report concerning "censurable conditions". They emphasized that whistleblowing does not involve anything else other than an employee speaking up. There are no requirements as to how a report must be presented, e.g. it can both be made orally or in writing, and it is not necessary that the employee labels it as a whistleblowing report. The only requirement is that the employee reports, speaks up, to one of the representatives they can report to pursuant to the WEA Section 2 A-2, typically a representative of the employer.
When it comes to the term "censurable conditions", the Supreme Court stated that it shall be interpreted broadly. It covers any alleged breaches of law, internal ethical guidelines or ethical norms with broad adherence in the society. It is not a requirement that the concern the employee reports about is of public interest. Further, there is not a requirement that an employee who reports about censurable conditions in the company must be able to prove that the allegations are true. Consequently, it is sufficient that a statement involves a suspicion or concern. The validity of the report must be assessed in more detail according to the investigations the employer must do in line with the duty of activity. The Supreme Court also states that there are no additional requirements when assessing whether an employee representative has reported about censurable conditions in the company, compared to other employees.
The Supreme Court says that it must be made a specific assessment of whether a statement constitutes a report concerning "censurable conditions" pursuant to the WEA. The decisive factor is whether the employer has reasonable grounds to perceive the statement as a report, i.e. that the employee speaks up about censurable conditions in the company. This does not entail an obligation for employees to express themselves clearly. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that any unclarities may, in light of the purpose of the rules on whistleblowing, involve a duty for the employer to contact the employee to clarify how a statement shall be understood.
The rules on whistleblowing in the WEA do not apply to general dissatisfaction or criticism that does not relate to breaches of law, internal ethical guidelines or ethical norms with broad adherence in the society. In this case, the email included allegations of breach of the company's guidelines on ethical behavior.
One judge was of a dissenting opinion. She emphasized that the distinction between general criticism and whistleblowing is being blurred, and that this was not the intent of the legislator. Furthermore, the dissenting judge emphasized that the cooperation and communication between a company and employee representatives are key. Such communication happens often and on a normal basis, while whistleblowing reports are of a more extraordinary character.