14 RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT transparency in the restructuring of the University and that those who did not oppose it were afraid of losing their jobs. (c) Whether the interference was necessary 56. The applicant further emphasised that nothing in the impugned email could be interpreted as unethical and at odds with good morals, as he had merely indicated his intention to publish true information, namely the conclusions adopted by the State Audit Office concerning the mismanagement of public finances at the University, and it was his duty to inform society thereof. He contended that the authorities had failed to prove that the content of the email overstepped the bounds of remarks that “shock, offend and disturb”. 57. The applicant also contended that the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance and had erred in finding that the impugned email contained unlawful requests. Firstly, he alleged that although the two requests included in the email had been addressed to the Rector, the applicant had nevertheless referred to “the University” in brackets, thus making clear that the Rector was a senior official of the University who, in accordance with the Constitution of the University, had the right of veto over Senate decisions. Secondly, he argued that his request to settle the dispute with the University had been based on his employment contract, which stated that all disputes were to be settled by mutual agreement. In this connection the applicant raised objections against the expert’s findings in the course of the criminal proceedings, alleging that the findings had never been sent to him and could not be used as evidence in the civil proceedings. 58. Finally, the applicant considered that the sanction – his dismissal – was not proportionate and that it had a dissuasive effect. This conclusion could not be altered by the fact invoked by the Government that the applicant had taken up a post in another major Latvian university soon afterwards. 2. The Government (a) The interference 59. The Government maintained their argument stated above (see paragraph 40) that the present case essentially concerned a labour dispute governed by the provisions of private law. They reiterated that the applicant had been dismissed after having addressed an email to the Rector of the University which contained illegal requests as well as threats and blackmail. They considered that a distinction should be drawn between the expression of criticism that might disturb or offend other persons, on the one hand, and incitement to perform unlawful activities that infringed individuals’ honour and dignity on the other. The latter was at issue in the present case, as the applicant’s behaviour constituted a particularly grave infringement of the