{"id":18108,"date":"2025-11-13T10:45:24","date_gmt":"2025-11-13T09:45:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.daldewolf.com\/?p=18108"},"modified":"2025-11-13T10:45:24","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T09:45:24","slug":"the-officil-october-2025-issue-105","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.daldewolf.com\/en\/the-officil-october-2025-issue-105\/","title":{"rendered":"THE OFFICI@L \u2013 October 2025 \u2013 Issue 105"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div><\/div>

The OFFICI@L – Issue 105 – October 2025, our newsletter dedicated to European Union officials, has just been published. It is available in both French and English.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

Editorial<\/h1>\n

Dear Readers,<\/em><\/p>\n

With the switch to wintertime and shorter days, this issue offers you some reading time around topics that deserve attention.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month, we offer a focus on the freedom of expression of officials and agents<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

We also analyse the judgment that annulled the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament not to confirm a Head of Unit at the conclusion of the management probationary period<\/a>, as well as the decision to transfer them to another unit.<\/em><\/p>\n

In our \u201cBelgian Law\u201d section, our colleagues specialising in banking law will raise awareness about \u201ccum-cum\u201d fraud<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

What topics would you like to see covered by The Official? Do not hesitate to contact us by email: theofficial@daldewolf.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Enjoy your reading!<\/em><\/p>\n

The DALDEWOLF team<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"<\/div><\/div>

DALDEWOLF<\/strong>
\n– European Union Law and Human Rights<\/strong><\/em>
\nTHIERRY BONTINCK – ANA\u00cfS GUILLERME – MARIANNE BR\u00c9SART – LAURA JAKOBS – LUCIE MARCHAL – LOUISE BOUCHET – SABRINA NAPOLITANO – FEDERICO PATUELLI
\n– Belgian Law<\/strong><\/em>
\nDOMINIQUE BOGAERT<\/p>\n

in partnership with PERSPECTIVES law firm<\/strong>:
\n– Family Law<\/strong><\/em>
\nCANDICE FASTREZ<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div>

Focus – Freedom of expression for civil servants: a regulated fundamental right<\/strong><\/h2>\n

With the increasing number of social media platforms enabling EU officials and agents to rapidly share opinions on a wide range of topics, assessing the balance between their individual freedom of expression and their obligations toward their employer\u2014European institutions entrusted with a mission of general interest\u2014has become increasingly delicate.<\/p>\n

Freedom of expression is a right granted to officials and agents under Article\u00a017a of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including in areas covered by the activities of the institutions. This freedom includes the right to express, verbally or in writing, personal opinions that differ from or are minority views compared to those officially endorsed. Indeed, to limit freedom of expression solely because the opinion expressed diverges from the institution\u2019s position would deprive this fundamental right of its very purpose (Judgment of 14 July 2000, Cwik\/Commission<\/em>, T-82\/99, \u00a7 58).<\/p>\n

However, freedom of expression is not an absolute right. It entails duties and responsibilities for the official or agent exercising it and may therefore be subject to certain conditions or restrictions.<\/p>\n

The framework governing freedom of expression for EU officials and agents is set out in Article 17a of the Staff Regulations.<\/p>\n

General framework: balancing freedom of expression and the duty of loyalty<\/h3>\n

Article 17a(1) of the Staff Regulations provides: \u201can official has the right to freedom of expression, with due respect to the principles of loyalty and impartiality.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

This general duty of loyalty implies that the respect owed by an official to their position is not limited to specific tasks but is expected of them under all circumstances (Judgment of 23 October 2013, F-80\/11, para. 65). It therefore also applies irrespective of whether the official or agent expresses personal views orally, in writing, or on social media. The duty of loyalty limits freedom of expression when statements are likely to seriously and negatively affect the image and dignity of EU institutions (Judgment of 15 September 2017, T-585\/16, \u00a7 86).<\/p>\n

The need for a \u201cdisclaimer\u201d often arises from this loyalty requirement, to avoid personal opinions being mistaken for official positions of EU institutions.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the purpose of freedom of expression lies precisely in allowing officials and agents to express views that differ from those held at an official level. To accept that freedom of expression could be restricted merely because the opinion of the author differs from the position held by the institutions would be to negate the purpose of that fundamental right (Judgment of 14 July 2000, T-82\/99, \u00a7 58).<\/p>\n

Only when the opinions expressed compromise the interests of the European Union may an official\u2019s or agent\u2019s freedom of expression be limited. For example, publications that directly contradict or criticize the actions of EU institutions, their programs, or directorates-general using offensive language that undermines the respect owed to EU officials or their functions may be considered as compromising the Union\u2019s interests.<\/p>\n

In a recent case (Judgment of 23 July 2025, Stanecki \/ Commission<\/em>, T-108\/24, \u00a7\u00a7 87-91), the Court assessed a breach of Article 17a of the Staff Regulations based on the \u201cseverity<\/em>\u201d and \u201ctone<\/em>\u201d of the statements made by an official, and the fact that the accusations were based on \u201ca distorted presentation of reality, lacking any factual basi<\/em>s.\u201d The Court also reaffirmed the European Court of Human Rights case law, which states that even if the person targeted by the statements is a public figure or \u201csenior official<\/em>\u201d subject to public scrutiny, this does not entitle officials to make statements that exceed acceptable limits of freedom of expression \u2014 such as making accusations based on a distorted version of reality devoid of any factual basis.<\/p>\n

Publications related to EU Activity<\/h3>\n

Article 17a(2) of the Staff Regulations requires officials or agents to inform the Appointing Authority (AIPN) in advance if they intend to publish or have published any text whose subject matter relates to EU activity. This criterion is interpreted broadly by the Court of Justice (Judgment of 10 June 2020, Sammut\/European Parliament<\/em>, T-608\/18, \u00a7\u00a7 62\u201377). The notion of EU activity encompasses any topic linked to EU competences or institutional actions. For instance, a book primarily addressing the domestic politics of a Member State was deemed to fall under EU activity because it discussed facts investigated by the PANA committee of the European Parliament in the context of tax fraud. Moreover, the book made explicit references to EU institutions and symbols in its title, content, and cover.<\/p>\n

The AIPN may, within 30 working days of receiving the notification, inform the official that the publication may harm the Union\u2019s legitimate interests. Authorisation may only be refused if the publication is likely to cause serious harm to those interests.<\/p>\n

Sanctions<\/h3>\n

Failure to comply with the framework governing freedom of expression may result in disciplinary penalties, particularly for breaches of the duty to give advance notice of the intention to publish or for breaches of the duty of loyalty.<\/p>\n

Regarding Article 17a(1), a breach of the duty of loyalty in the exercise of freedom of expression may be established even without proven harm to the Union or external complaints (Judgment of 23 October 2013, F-80\/11, \u00a7 66). However, any disciplinary penalty must be proportionate and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Factors such as good faith, public interest, truthfulness of the information, or the availability of alternative disclosure channels may be considered when evaluating the legitimacy of the positions expressed by the official.<\/p>\n

Moreover, even without disciplinary proceedings, failure to give advance notice of a publication may be mentioned in the annual appraisal report as a one-off incident, given that it concerns a clear rule derived from the Staff Regulations (Judgment of 10 June 2020, T-608\/18, \u00a7 72).<\/p>\n<\/div>