The theoretic problem for EU States was that the national law of all those 27 countries forbade dismissing whistleblowers. However the European law did not. Thus she was dismissed in a manner that was impossible under national law of those 27 States.
It was impossible to sue the European Union, so she sued 27 individual States before the European Court of Human Rights, and I represented her. We lost the case in Strasbourg.
The European Court of Human Rights states that we failed to prove that the EU General Court had not been an equivalent human rights defense mechanism to national human rights mechanisms (§ 70).
This is abuse of deduction. In fact, under national law it is possible to attack dismissal as such, to go in-depth of the facts grounding the dismissal. The situation is absolutely different before the EU General Court. First, there is no such thing as a prohibition on dismissal of whistle-blowers. Second, the EU Courts in Luxembourg do not review the facts grounding the dismissal, and their competence is limited to procedural issues.
Thus, there is no efficient whistleblowers defense mechanism in Luxembourg, and the European Court of Human rights refused to look at the problem closer.
After such a response from the Strasbourg Court, there is a possibility of appeal to United Nations.