28 RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION interests of society” (see paragraph 25 of the judgment). Rather, the appeal court found it established that what the applicant was seeking to achieve was the self-serving objective of preserving his job or obtaining significant financial compensation, not any objective of acting in the public interest. 11. It goes without saying that the lower the degree of public interest involved in the expression of opinion or the dissemination of information in question, the lower will be the level of protection afforded under Article 10 of the Convention. To this extent, the applicant’s motives – in having as his main, driving concern the maintenance of his employment and its benefits, rather than bringing to the attention of the public worrying aspects of the University’s management and activities – are indeed of primary relevance for the balancing exercise to be carried out under Article 10 and not merely, as the majority suggest (see paragraph 87 of the judgment), in the possible context of whilstle-blowing. 12. On the other hand, the circumstances to which the majority attaches importance when addressing the issue of the applicant’s motives – such as the initial communications between the Rector of the University, the functions of the Rector within the University and the amount of compensation sought by the applicant (see paragraph 88 of the judgment) – are matters going to the actual merits of the employment dispute. 13. It is not part of this Court’s role to rejudge the merits of the employment dispute. In any event, there is no reason why this – international – Court’s assessment, at one remove, of these circumstances should be any more reliable than that of the national courts. 14. In its judgment the appeal court did balance the applicant’s freedom of expression against the other conflicting interests in issue. In particular, the appeal court expressly recognised “the applicant’s democratic rights to inform society and the competent institutions about the alleged violations in the [University]”, while noting that “nothing prevented the applicant from expressing his opinion in a manner compatible with ethics and staff regulations” (see paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment). In this connection, it is difficult to understand how the majority can either say that the domestic appeal court did not at all assess the public interest and truthfulness of the disparaging information that the applicant was threatening to disseminate if he did not obtain satisfaction (see paragraph 85 of the judgment) or criticise the appeal court for not having given this Court “the benefit of [a] relevant assessment” of the factors “relevant for the purposes of the analysis of proportionality” (see paragraph 89 of the judgment). In our view, the considerations relied on by the appeal court were both relevant and sufficient. Given what the appeal court took to be the seriousness of the disloyal conduct of the applicant as established by the evidence before it, the sanction of dismissal cannot be regarded as disproportionate.