19The Court of First Instance rejected this plea for the following reasons:147 In the present case, it is not disputed that the applicant went ahead with publication of his book without applying for the prior permission required by the provision cited above. However, the applicant, without expressly raising an objection of illegality to the effect that the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations as a whole is unlawful, submits that the Commission's interpretation of the provision is contrary to the principle of freedom of expression.148 In that regard, it must be recalled that the right to freedom of expression laid down in Article 10 of the ECHR constitutes, as has already been made clear, a fundamental right, the observance of which is guaranteed by the Community Courts and which Community officials also enjoy (Oyowe and Traore v Commission, paragraph 16, and E v ESC, paragraph 41). None the less, it is also clear from settled case-law that fundamental rights do not constitute an unfettered prerogative but may be subject to restrictions, provided that the restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general public interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute, with regard to the objectives pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference which infringes upon the very substance of the rights protected (see Schräder v Hauptzollamt Gronau, paragraph 15; Case C-404/92 P X v Commission [1994] ECR I-4737, paragraph 18; Case T-176/94K v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-203, II-621, paragraph 33; and N v Commission, paragraph 73).149 In the light of those principles and the case-law on Article 12 of the Staff Regulations (see paragraph 129 above and E v ESC, paragraph 41), the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the decision removing the applicant from his post, cannot be regarded as imposing an unwarranted restriction on the freedom of expression of officials.150 First, it must be emphasised that the requirement that permission be obtained prior to publication corresponds to the legitimate aim that material dealing with the work of the Communities should not undermine their interests and, in particular, as in the present case, the reputation and image of one of the institutions.151 Second, the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations does not constitute a disproportionate measure in relation to the public-interest objective which the article concerned seeks to protect.152 In that connection, it should be observed at the outset that, contrary to the applicant's contention, it cannot be inferred from the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations that the rules it lays down in respect of prior permission thereby enable the institution concerned to exercise unlimited censorship. First, under that provision, prior permission is required only when the material that the official wishes to publish, or to have published, “[deals] with the work of the Communities”. Second, it is clear from that provision that there is no absolute prohibition on publication, a measure which, in itself, would be detrimental to the very substance of the right to freedom of expression. On the contrary, the last sentence of the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations sets out clearly the principles governing the grant of permission, specifically providing that permission may be refused only where the publication in point is liable to prejudice the interests of the Communities. Moreover, such a decision may be contested under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, so that an official who takes the view that he was refused permission in breach of the Staff Regulations is able to have recourse to the legal remedies available to him with a view to securing review by the Community Courts of the assessment made by the institution concerned.153 It must also be emphasised that the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations is a preventive measure designed on the one hand, to ensure that the Communities' interests are not jeopardised, and, on the other, as the Commission has rightly pointed out, to make it unnecessary for the institution concerned, after publication of material prejudicing the Communities' interests, to take disciplinary measures against an official who has exercised his right of expression in a way that is incompatible with his duties.154 In the present case, the appointing authority maintained, in its decision removing the applicant from his post, that he had failed to comply with that provision on the grounds that, first, he had not requested permission to publish his book, second, he could not have failed to be aware that he would be refused permission on the same grounds as those on which permission had previously been refused in respect of articles of similar content, and, finally, his conduct had seriously prejudiced the Communities' interests and had damaged the institution's image and reputation.155 In the light of all those considerations, therefore, it cannot be inferred from the decision removing the applicant from his post that the finding that he had infringed the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations would have been made even if the Communities' interests had not been prejudiced. Accordingly there is nothing to indicate that the scope attributed by the appointing authority to that provision goes further than the aim pursued and is therefore contrary to the principle of freedom of expression.156 In those circumstances, the plea alleging breach of the right to freedom of expression must be rejected.157 The argument that the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations does not apply to officials who are on leave on personal grounds is also unfounded. As pointed out above (paragraph 130), it follows from Article 35 of the Staff Regulations that an official on such leave retains his status as an official throughout the period of leave and therefore remains bound by his obligations under the regulations in the absence of express provision to the contrary. The second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations applies to all officials and does not draw any distinction based on the status of the person concerned. Consequently, the fact that the applicant was on leave on personal grounds when his book was published does not release him from his obligation under the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations to request permission from the appointing authority prior to publication.158 That interpretation is not undermined by the fact that, unlike the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations, the first paragraph thereof expressly provides that an official continues to be bound by his duty of confidentiality after leaving the service. An official on leave on personal grounds is not comparable to an official whose service has terminated, as provided in Article 47 of the Staff Regulations, and who, therefore, does not fall within any of the administrative statuses listed in Article 35 of the Staff Regulations....160 Accordingly, the Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority were right to find that the applicant had infringed the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations.161 Finally, the applicant's allegation that a general practice existed in the Commission, by virtue of which officials on leave on personal grounds were not required to request prior permission for publication, is in no way substantiated by the statement cited by him. In that statement, the former Director-General of DG II confines himself to saying that Mr Connolly had taken unpaid leave of one year in 1985 in order to work for a private financial institution and, during that period, he had not considered it necessary to approve the texts prepared by Mr Connolly for that institution or even to comment on them. It follows that there is no basis for the argument.162 Consequently, the plea must be rejected.’
10 judgesC. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric