10 MATÚZ v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 40. Given the presence of these elements in the applicant’s situation, the Court considers that the domestic authorities should have paid particular attention to the public interest attached to the applicant’s conduct. 41. As to the criterion of accuracy, it was not asserted by the employer or later established by the courts that the documents published by the applicant were not authentic or were distorted or that his comments had been devoid of factual basis. Moreover, some of the applicant’s statements amounted to value judgments, the truth of which is not susceptible of proof (see, for instance, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103). 42. Regarding the question as to whether the publication could be considered detrimental, the Court is mindful of the Regional Court’s judgment referring to the potential damage to the television company’s reputation which the book might have caused (see paragraph 14 above). 43. Nonetheless, the issue arises as to whether there was any need to prevent the disclosure of information that was already available to the public (see Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 51, Series A no. 177; and Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands, 9 February 1995, § 41, Series A no. 306-A) and might already have been known to a large number of people. The Court notes that on 9 June 2003, before the publication of the applicant’s book, an article appeared in an online newspaper containing information about the alleged censorship (see paragraph 8 above). Thus, although the publication of the documents in the impugned book was a breach of confidentiality – an element which brings into play the notion of “duties and responsibilities” within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention – their substance in general had already been made accessible through an online publication and was known to a number of people. 44. In so far as the motives for making the impugned documents public may be relevant, the applicant’s assertion is that he acted in good faith, in order to draw public attention to censorship at the State television. For the Government, this course of action was nothing more than a wilful breach of employment obligations. 45. An act motivated by a personal grievance or a personal antagonism or the expectation of personal advantage, including pecuniary gain, would not justify a particularly strong level of protection (see Kudeshkina, cited above, § 95). 46. In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant’s account of his motives was not called into question before the domestic courts. Nor was it suggested that he had included the confidential documents in the book with any other intention than to corroborate his arguments on censorship. There was no appearance of any gratuitous personal attack, either. 47. Furthermore, for the Court, the applicant’s decision to make the impugned information and documents public was based on the experience that neither his complaint to the president of the television company nor the