Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:193
Date: 2000-07-14
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Freedom of expression;Duty of loyalty
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-82/99 
Summary 
1. Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Freedom of expression — 
Restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights justified on grounds of general 
interest - Community official requesting permission to publish 
(Treaty on European Union, Art. F(2) (now, after amendment, Art. 6(2), EU); 
European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 10; Staff Regulations, Art. 17, second 
para.) 
2. Officials - Rights and obligations - Freedom of expression - Request for 
permission to publish — Publication liable to prejudice the interests of the 
Communities — Expression of a point of view different from that of the institution 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 17, second para.) 
1. Freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on 
Human Rights, is one of the fundamental rights which, as the Court of Justice has 
consistently held and as is reaffirmed by the preamble to the Single European Act 
and by Article F(2) of the Treaty on European Union (now, after amendment, 
Article 6(2) EU), are protected in the Community legal order and apply inter alia 
to Community officials. However, fundamental rights do not constitute an 
unfettered prerogative but may be subject to restrictions, provided that the latter in 
fact correspond to objectives of general interest and do not constitute, in relation to 
the objective pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference in a democratic 
society, which infringes upon the very substance of the rights safeguarded. 
I-A - 156 
CWIK v COMMISSION 
Considered in the light of those principles, the second paragraph of Article 17 of the 
Staff Regulations gives expression to the permanent need to strike a fair balance 
between ensuring that a fundamental right may be exercised and protecting a 
legitimate objective of general interest. Hence, that objective may justify restricting 
the exercise of such a right only if the actual circumstances require it and only in 
so far as necessary. According to that provision, an official is obliged to request 
permission to publish an article but the obligation is limited to articles dealing with 
the work of the Communities and permission may be refused only 'where the 
proposed publication is liable to prejudice the interests of the Communities'. 
(see paras 50 to 52) 
See: C-100/88 Oyowe and Traore v Commission [1989] ECR 4285, para. 16; C-404/92 
P X v Commission [1994] I-4737, para. 18; T-273/94 N v Commission [1997] ECR-SC 
I-A-97 and II-289, para. 73; T-183/96 E v ESC [ 1998] ECR-SC I-A-67 and II-159, para. 
41; C-235/92 P Montecatini v Commission [1999] ECR I-4539, para. 137 
2. In a democratic society founded on respect for fundamental rights, the fact that 
an official publicly expresses points of view different from those of the institution 
for which he works cannot, in itself, be regarded as liable to prejudice the interests 
of the Communities for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 17 of the 
Staff Regulations. Clearly, the purpose of freedom of expression is precisely to 
enable expression to be given to opinions which differ from those held at an official 
level. To accept that freedom of expression could be restricted merely because the 
opinion at issue differs from the position adopted by the institutions would be to 
negate the purpose of that fundamental right. Likewise, the second paragraph of 
Article 17 of the Staff Regulations would be rendered nugatory, since, as is apparent 
from its wording, it clearly lays down the principle on which permission for 
publication is granted, specifically providing that such permission is to be refused 
only where the proposed publication is liable to prejudice the interests of the 
Communities. 
I-A - 157 
SUMMARY — CASE T-82/99 
Consequently, the mere fact that there is a difference of opinion between an official 
and his institution does not justify refusing a request under the second paragraph of 
Article 17 of the Staff Regulations for permission to publish, in so far as there is no 
evidence that making that difference public would be liable to prejudice the interests 
of the Communities. 
(see paras 57 to 60) 
I-A - 158