RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 27 In other words, for the domestic appeal court there was no interference by the University with the applicant’s exercise of his freedom of expression in relation to his “prior activities” in expressing criticism. In their analysis of interference, the majority pass over in silence this aspect of the domestic appeal court’s ruling on the dispute between the applicant and his employer. 8. Consequently, our first doubt as to the majority’s analysis of the facts in terms of Article 10 of the Convention is as to the existence of an interference with the exercise of his freedom of expression by the applicant. In sum, it would appear from the material in the case-file that the applicant was not penalised by way of dismissal from his post on account of any expression by him of his opinions, whether in the e-mail of 20 March 201 or before that, the ground that the domestic appeal court relied on for his dismissal being perceived professional and ethical misconduct. B. Paragraph 2 of Article 10: Whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society” 9. In any event, even assuming that the applicant’s dismissal entailed an interference with his exercise of his freedom of expression, we find no ground for holding that that interference, as upheld by the domestic courts, was not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10. The “public interest” in the disclosure of information on management shortcomings and plagiarism at the University relied on by the majority of our colleagues (see paragraphs 83-85 of the judgment) turns out on closer examination of the case-file to be extremely weak in the circumstances of the present case. To begin with, the applicant was perfectly willing to forego any such disclosure “in the public interest” provided that he kept his job as head of department or received significant compensation (see his e-mail of 10 March 2010 – paragraph 13 of the judgment). The possible resort to disclosure of the disparaging information concerning the University was quite evidently mentioned by him as a bargaining tool, among others, in his employment dispute with the University. The truthfulness and authenticity of this disparaging information, to which the majority attaches some importance (see paragraph 84 of the judgment), does not at all detract from the “blackmailing” character of his threat of disclosure, that is to say, from the fact that he was using the threat of disseminating disparaging information as a lever to obtain from the University the settlement that he desired of the dispute. Thus, on the basis of the material before it and after having heard argument, the domestic appeal court found – again a material factual element passed over in silence by the majority – that there was “no reason to conclude that the applicant had only intended to inform [the Rector] about [his plan] to exercise his democratic rights, [that is] to submit complaints to the courts and to publish information in the media, while respecting the