EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2011 :4 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Ch amber)
20 January 2011
Case F-132/07
Guido St rack
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Officials — Articles 17, 17a and 19 o f the Staff Regulations — Application for 
authorisation to disclose documents — Application for authorisation to publish a t ext — 
Application for authorisation to use findings before national judicial authorities — Admissibility)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A by which M r Strack seeks a nnulment of 
Commission d ecisions of 20 July, 9 August, 11 September and 9 November 2007 
rejecting th e applicant’s application f or authorisation t o publish certain documents and 
to use them f or the purposes of criminal proceedings against certain Commissioners and 
Commission o fficials and an order that the Commission p ay him E UR 10 000 f or the 
damage suffered as a r esult of those decisions.
Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
Summ ary
1. Procedure — Lodging of defence — Time-limit — Extension
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 39(2))
2. Officials — Rights and obligations — Freedom o f expression — Exercise — Limits
(Art. 6(3) TEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 17a)
3. Officials — Rights and obligations — Freedom o f expression — Publication of texts dealing with the 
work of the Union — No obligation to inform in the case of former officials — Disclosure of information 
relating to the service — Requirement of prior authorisation for former officials
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 17 a nd 17a)
4. Officials — Actions — Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations —Definition
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(1))
5. Officials — Rights and obligations — Disclosure of information relating to the se rvice — 
Requirement of prior authorisation — Justification
(Art. 339 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 17)
2 ECLI:EU:F:2011 :4SUMM ARY—CASEF-132/07
STRACKvCOMM ISSION
6. Officials — Rights and obligations — Disclosure of information relating to the se rvice — 
Requirement of prior authorisation — Need t o submit a s ufficiently specific request to the 
administration
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 17)
7. Officials — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Scope
8. Officials — Rights and obligations — Disclosure of information relating to the se rvice — 
Giving evidence before a n ational court — Requirement of prior authorisation
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 11, first para., 17 a nd 19)
1. Article 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal allows its President to grant an 
extension o f the time-limit laid d own for the defendant to lodge a d efence. In that regard, the fact that 
several extensions have b een granted in th e absence of ad versarial argument does no t breach th e 
applicant’s right to fair legal process if the position o f the parties has no t been substantially changed. 
The fairness of a p rocedure has to be assessed in the light of that position taken as a w hole.
(see para. 31)
2. The obligation t o inform th e appointing authority of an intention t o publish any text dealing with 
the work of the Union c onstitutes an interference in an official’s exercise of freedom o f expression. 
That interference m ust, th erefore, be assessed in accordance with A rticle 10(2) of the European 
Convention on H uman Rights, which guarantees fundamental rights forming part of European Union 
law as general principles pursuant to Article 6(3) TEU. Under Article 10(2) of the Convention th e 
exercise of freedom of expression, ’since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to 
such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties’ as are prescribed by law. Moreover, a r ule may 
not validly impose restrictions on f reedom of expression if it is no t set out sufficiently clearly to allow 
a citizen to ada pt his conduct, which the principle of legal certainty also requires.
(see para. 59)
See:
6 March 2001 , C-274/99 P Connolly v C omm ission, paras 40 to 42; 3 June 2008 , C-308/06 Intertanko a nd Others, 
para. 69
3. As Article 17a of the Staff Regulations is no t applicable to former officials, they may publish texts 
dealing with th e work of the Union w ithout informing the appointing authority beforehand, but they 
are required to seek authorisation f or the purposes of Article 17 o f the Staff Regulations, not on ly 
before disclosing information w hich came t o th eir kno wledge in th e pe rformance of their duties, but 
also before publishing texts which th ey dr ew up, or on w hich th ey collaborated, containing such 
information, unless th at information h as already been made accessible to the public.
(see paras 62-64)
4. A request based on A rticle 90(1) of the Staff Regulations must specify its purpose sufficiently clearly 
for the authority to be able to take a d ecision in full kno wledge of the facts and, in th e absence of a 
specific request for a d ecision, there can be no r equest within th e me aning of that provision. A 
request cannot achieve i ts aim if the appointing authority is no t sufficiently informed of its purpose.
ECLI:EU:F:2011 :4 3SUMM ARY—CASEF-132/07
STRACKvCOMM ISSION
(see para. 69)
See:
12 March 1975 , 23/74 K üster v P arliament, para. 11
11 June 1996 , T-110/94 S ánchez M ateo v C omm ission, para. 26; 11 June 1996 , T-111/94 O uzounoff Popoff v 
Comm ission, para. 28
5. Article 17 o f the Staff Regulations prohibits officials, as a r ule, from di sclosing information r eceived 
in th e pe rformance of their duties and m akes such di sclosure subject to prior authorisation. That 
requirement of authorisation i s intended to allow th e appointing authority to ensure th at such 
disclosure does no t damage the interests of the Union, inter alia, by affecting its reputation. It is also 
intended to put the Union in a p osition to make sure, in good time, that officials ada pt their conduct 
in accordance with th e interests of the institutions and th e obligations incumbent on th em u nder 
Article 339 T FEU. The me asures laid d own by Article 17 o f the Staff Regulations thus contribute, inter 
alia, to the maintenance of the necessary relationship of trust between the institutions and their staff.
(see para. 71)
6. The me asures laid d own by Article 17 o f the Staff Regulations provide that an official who wishes to 
disclose information w hich came t o his kno wledge in th e pe rformance of his duties or to use findings 
made in that connection b efore national judicial authorities is required to submit a s ufficiently specific 
request to the appointing authority.
The implementation o f those me asures presupposes that the question w hether it is appropriate to 
authorise the disclosure of information is assessed in th e light of all the specific circumstances of the 
case and th eir implications for th e institution a nd for th e pe rformance of public service. Su ch 
implementation a lso requires that a b alance be struck between th e different interests in play in order 
to determine whether the interest of the Union o r the interest of the public in receiving information 
should prevail. Moreover, it cannot be otherwise since freedom o f expression e ntails freedom to 
distribute information a nd a r efusal to authorise such di stribution on th e basis of an overall and 
abstract assessment would no t comply with th e conditions under which interference in that freedom is 
permissible.
Moreover, the very substance of the right of eve ry individual to a f air t rial, guaranteed by Article 6 of 
the European Convention on H uman Rights, might be affected if the appointing authority were to rule 
in general and in the abstract without having first made a f ull and detailed examination.
(see paras 72-75)
See:
18 February 1992 , C-54/90 W edde l v C omm ission, Opinion o f Advocate General Van Gerven, point 11
13 June 2002 , T-74/01 F errer de M oncada v C omm ission, para. 58
7. The principle of sound ad ministration d oes no t exemp t a p ublic servant from th e obligation t o 
provide information a nd to act in good faith towards the institutions incumbent on h im w hen he 
makes a r equest to those institutions.
4 ECLI:EU:F:2011 :4SUMM ARY—CASEF-132/07
STRACKvCOMM ISSION
(see para. 79)
See:
23 January 2002 , T-386/00 G onçalves v P arliament, para. 74; 17 October 2002 , T-180/00 A stipesca v C omm ission, 
para. 93; 11 March 2003 , T-186/00 C onserve Italia v C omm ission, para. 50
8. Articles 17 a nd 19 o f the Staff Regulations do no t, it is true, require an official to limit the number 
and volume o f the documents he asks to be authorised to disclose or produce before a c ourt if he 
considers that the disclosure and production b efore the court of each of those documents is justified. 
However, in accordance with th e duty of that official to cooperate in good faith u nder th e first 
paragraph of Article 11 o f the Staff Regulations, it is incumbent upon h im to facilitate the task of the 
administration. In th at light, th e obligation on h im to provide sufficiently specific information, inter 
alia as regards the subject-matter of the documents in question a nd th eir relevance to his general 
objective, is all th e m ore compe lling. An official may, therefore, be asked to classify documents 
according to appropriate and consistent criteria in order to facilitate their examination, and to provide 
a summary, where necessary.
(see paras 78, 81)