(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The applicant is a Belgian national born in 1927 at Etterbeck . She is a teacher. In the proceedings before the Commission she is represented by Mr. Pierre Legros, a lawyer practising in Brussels . The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The applicant, who had been employed as technical department superintendent on the staff of the Hainaut Prov ince Technical Schools al Saint-Ghislain since 1972. 1 32 took part on 28 October 1980 in a television programme broadcast by the Frenchlan guage channel of Belgian television (RTBF -" Radio télévision belge francophone ") on the subject of homosexual women ("femmes homosexuelles") . During the programme she declared that she was homosexual and described the repereussions of this situation on her professional career. In particular, she made the following statements : . . . I was expecting to take up the post of head teacher in a very large school of 1 ,000 girls and 200 boys. Then people said, though unfortunately this was never stated in writing, that it was unthinkable that a homosexual woman should be put in charge of a school with 1,000 girls. I find that rather amusing! There are at present two men in charge of the school ; I dod [ know whether that dcesdt make the risk all the greater . . . When one applies for a post one looks around for support and thi s remark was made to the people who were supporting me . . . It's unbelievable . . . I felt that I had b een shunned by everyone and I was not appointed to the head-teacher's post . " On 29 October I980, the Director of the Hainaut T echnical Schools sent a letter to the chairman and members of the Provincial Standin g Committee ("Députation permanente") in which he asked for the applicant to be suspended immediately from her duties, complaining of her conduct in three res pects : her appearance in public, her allega[ions against the provincial authorities with regard to her professional career and the unacceptable insinuations concerning the present heads of the establishment . By decision of the Standing Committee of Hainaut Provincial Council rendered on 30 October 1980, the applicant was compulsorily relieved of her duties and payment of her salary was suspended, on the basis of Rule 24 of the general regu- lations, which provides for the suspension of permanent or probationary members of the provincial teaching staff. The applicant then lodged an appeal with the Conseil d'Etat to have this decision quashed. On 22 January 1981 the Standing Committee of Hainaut Provincial Council decided [o rel ieve the applicant of her duties as a disciplinary measure, in pursuance of Rule 37, paragraph 6 of the staff regulations governing the teaching profession in Hainaut province. This decision, which also deal[ with the administrative and financial situation of the applicant, came into force on 29 October 1980, thereby superseding the decision of 30 October 1980 referred to above. In the preambular paragraphs of the decision, the Standing Committee stated that the applicant had not been di sc iplined on account of being a homosexual but exclusively o wing to her allegations against the provincial authoriti es and her insinuations concerning the present headmasters of the school. In this connection, the 133 Comm ittee noted that the applicant's statements had seriously undermined the good reputation of the schooL It also pointed out that the applicant had repeated her allegations on 16 December 1980 in a national television broadcast and xlso in an interview given to the Dutch-language press . The applicant subsequently contested the decision and requested a hearing before the advisory committee on appeals as provided under Rule 40 of the aforementioned staff regulations. After hearing the applicant, assisted by her counsel, the advisory committee i ssued an opinion to the effect that the decision of 22 January 1981 by the Standing Committee was justified. On the strength of this opinion. the Standing Committee decided on 21 Jnnuxry 1982 to confirm its decision of 22 January 1981 . An appeal was lodged with the Conseil d 'Etat to have bot h these decisions annulled . In a judgment of 27 June 1984, the Conseil d'Etat joi ned the two appeals and di smi ssed them . In the preamble to the judgment, it was pointed out that by claiming she had not been appointed to the post of head teacher on account of hz r homa sezualiry, the applicant had called into question the impurtialiry of the provincial authorities concerning the promution which had been denied her, without prov iding any evidence for her allegation . Furthermore, afte r pointing out that the applicant had a duty to behave with moderation a nd professional discretion in accordance wilh Rule 9 of the aforemen iioned sta ff regulations, the Conseil d' Etat considered that although it is permissible for civi l servan[s to express reasonable and balanced criticism of admini strali ve action, they were forbidden [o niake unwarranted attacks on the authority and reputation of their hierarchical superiors or undermine the confidence which the public is expected to have in the administration, especially in the field of education . In this connection, the Conseil d'Etat considered that t his duty to behave with moderation and discretion constituted a measu re necessary in a democratic society and not ineonsistent with Article 10 para. 2 of the European Convention on Human Righls. COMPLAINTS Before the Commission, the applicant complains of the disciplinary sanction imposed o n her after she made her statements during the television broadcast . She claims thai this sanction co ntravenes her right tu f'reedom of expression in violation of Article 1 0 of t he Convention . THE LAW The applicant alleges that the disciplinary sanction imposed upon her after she made her statements during a television broadcast on the subject of homoazxual ity contravene her right to freedom of expression . ln suppon of her claim, she relies on Article. 1 0 of the Convention. 134 Article 10 of the Convention guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression. Referring to the case-law of the European Courl of Human Rights, the Commission recalis the status o f civil servant does not deprive a person of the protection afforded by Article 10 (Eur. Court H. R., Glasenapp judgment of 28 August 1986, Series A no. 104, p . 26, para. 50 ; Kosiek judgment of 28 August 1966, Series A no. 105, p. 20 , para . 36) . Nevertheless, the exercise of ihis freedom may be subject to cerlain conditions, as stated in paragraph 2 of the same article. The Commission notes first of all that the decision by which the applicant was relieved of her duties as a disciplinary measure replaced a pre vious decision by which the applicant had already been disciplined for the same acts . In the present application, the Commission holds the view that the disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant should be regarded, in v iew of the consequences it hud, as an interference in the exercise of her freedom of expression. The question is therefore whether this interference is justif i ed under the terms of pa ragraph 2 of the relevant provision . Firstly, the Commission notes that the duty to behave with moderation requi red of the teaching staff of Hainaut province was provided for under Rule 9. parag raph 2 of the staff regulations gover ning teachers in Hainaut province . According to the terms of this provision : " members of staff must behave in ail circumstances in a dignified and correct manner and perform no act likely to set a bad example" . The Commission also notes that the disciplinary sanction under consideration was providcd for under Rule 37-6 of the aforememioned staff regulations. This rule, which (urms pan of Chapcer VI[I on disciplinary measures, lists the sanctions w hich may be imposed on teaching staff holding permanent contracts . the procedure for suspending staff from their duties as a disciplinary measure is provided for in paragraph 6 . The interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was therefore prescribed by law . There can be no doubt that the text of these provisions was "a deyuately accessible" to the applicant (Eur. Court H .R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no . 30, p. 3 1 , para. 49). As to the criterion of foreseeability, the Commission finds that, at ihe time the events occurred, the applicant held the post of technical department superintendent at the Technical Schools of Hainaut province situated at Saint-Ghislain. This being so, it considers that the applicant was in a position to foresee to a reaso nable extent that the statements she made during the television broadcast implicating Ihe head teachers of the establishment was likely to have repercussions on her professional relations . The interference at issue was therefore "prescribed by law" within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention . 1 35 As to the aim of the interference, the Commission considers that it was designed to protect the reputation a nd rights of o[hers, namely the Hainaut Technical Schools at Saint-Ghislain and more particularly the Iwo implicaied head teachers of that establishment , within the meaning of Anicle 10 para. 2 of the Convention. Lastly, the Commission must examine the extent to which the interference was necessary in a democratic society . It must assess whether there was a proponionate relationship between the lim itation placed on the applicant's exercise of her freedom of expression and the interests served by the limitation. The Commission finds that the disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant was motivated by the fact that she had publicly undermineA the authority and reputatiun of her hierarchical superiors, on t he occas ion of a television broadcast . No sanction was imposed on the applicant, the Com mission notes, because of her homosexuality . The Commission wishes to stress that whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes "duli es and responsibilities" the scope of which depends on his situation and the technical means he uses (Eur. Court H. R., Handyside judgment of 7 December 1 976, Series A no. 24, p . 23, para . 49). Thus, there are two factors m be taken into accounL The first concerns the applicant's situation as a leacher in a provincial technical school . The second concerns the nature of the technical means she used in making her statements. With regard to the first factor, the Commission notes that the applicant had accepted a responsible post in the provincial education service. It considers that by entering the civil service, the applicant accepted certa in restrictions on the exercise of her freedom of expression, as being inherent in her duties. In this connection the Commission recalls its case-law according to which "a duty of modera tion, which is a widespread feature of the regulations of the civil services of member states o f the Council of Europe, arises from ihe duties and responsibilities which civil servants have as the agents through which the State operates. The restriction as to moderation is similarly reflected in the Staff Regulations of the Council of Europe and other international organisations" (cf. Kosiek v . the Fecleral Repub lic of Germany, Comm. Report 11 .5,84, para. 85, Euc Coun H.R., Series A no. 105 , p. 37). With regard to the second factor, the Commission notes that the applicant, when making her statements, used a means the impact of which is both wide and immediate, namely television. Funher, on the occas ion of the aforementi oned televis ion broadcas t, the applicant attacked the reputation of hierarchical superiors without providing any proof to support her allegations. What is more, the applicant behaved in a similar manner on the occasion of a subsequent television broadcast and at a press interview . In the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that, in view of the particular professional responsibilities incumbent on the applicant and the spec ific nature of her work, the Belgian authorities were reasonably justified in 136 invoking the harmful repercussions of her statements on the reputation of the establishment where she performed her teac hing duties and on the reputation of Ihe persons appointed in her stead , in order to impose the sanction at issue. Thus, a proper balance was maintained between the exercise of freedom of expression and the legitimate interests underlying the measure. For these reaso ns, the Commission considers that the restriction in question constituted a measu re that was necessary in a democratic sociery for the protection of the rzputa[ion and rights of others. It follows that Ihe application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accorda nce with Article 27 para. 2 of the Conven[ion . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . 137