5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Riga. 6.  The applicant was a professor and the head of the Department of Dermatological and Venereal Diseases of the Faculty of Medicine of Riga Stradiņa University (hereafter “the University”), which is a State university. The applicant had been elected to the position of head of department with effect until 13 April 2013. He was also an elected member of the constituent assembly of the University (Satversmes sapulce). 7.  On 22 February 2010 the Council of the Faculty of Medicine decided to merge the Department of Dermatological and Venereal Diseases and the Department of Infectious Diseases. That decision was approved by the Senate of the University (Senāts) on the following day. It appears that as a result of the merger the position of head of department occupied by the applicant was abolished. Accordingly, on 24 February 2010 the applicant received a warning (brīdinājums) to that effect and was given the opportunity to agree to the changes in his contract with the University. He was also informed that if he refused, his employment relationship with the University would be terminated. 8.  On 28 February 2010 the applicant sent various emails to the Rector of the University concerning the circumstances of the reorganisation and the abolition of his department. He criticised the decisions taken by the deputy dean, G.B. 9.  On 3 March 2010 the applicant sent another email to the Rector of the University and to several other recipients, including the members of the Senate. The email criticised the lack of democracy and accountability in the leadership of the organisation, which, according to the applicant, stemmed from the fact that all the members of the Senate were also a part of the executive authority of the University and there was thus an inadequate system of checks and balances. He also drew the recipients’ attention to the alleged mismanagement of the University’s finances. In support of this allegation the applicant relied on the conclusions adopted by the State Audit Office (Valsts Kontrole) in December 2009. 10.  The applicant further spoke in unfavourable terms about several representatives of the management of the University, stating, for example, that [Mr ...]. “pretends to be a God-fearing Catholic ... yet, as far as is known, has several children born out of wedlock”, that [Mr ...] “cannot decide a single question by himself, does not keep his word, is lying” and that [Mrs ...] “has called me and asked me to break the law in the interests of her protégés”. 11.  Finally, the applicant came up with a proposal involving several amendments to the constitution of the University, such as changes in the election of the members of the Senate (an obligation to inform the constituent assembly of the candidate’s CV at least one week before the elections, the setting-up of an independent electoral commission); separation of powers between the University’s governing bodies (Senate members should not be part of the executive body of the University); and the granting of independence to the Senate (changing the remuneration system so that the Rector did not unilaterally fix the remuneration of members of the Senate). He asked the Rector to forward his proposals to the members of the constituent assembly and to send him the email addresses of those members or inform him where to find those contacts. 12.  It appears that on 16 March 2010 the applicant expressed his disagreement with the reorganisation at the meeting of the Senate of the university which upheld the decision. 13.  On 20 March 2010 the applicant sent an email to the Rector of the University. The subject-line of the email read “Settlement agreement”. The text of the email read as follows:
“To the Rector of the University .... Confidential
[1] Dear Rector,
[2] In view of the situation which has evolved and the advice of my lawyers and supporters, I hereby propose the following settlement agreement.
[3] It would entail:
[4] Version 1
[5] You (the University) revoke all the orders and decisions of the Senate concerning the abolition/merger of the Department of Dermatological and Venereal Diseases. I for my part withdraw all my appeals, thereby restoring the situation as it was before the decision of the Senate of 23 February 2010. Meanwhile the three lecturers ... (all of them were recognised as plagiarists by a decision of the [Latvian association of doctors]) who expressed their intention to move to the Department of Infectious Diseases, are transferred to that Department. I have no objections if the specialist ... who, it is common knowledge, is the mother of ...’s daughter, is transferred to another post or fired. This month she did not spend a single day at work in the Department of Dermatological and Venereal Diseases (presumably she reports to ... or has been transferred to ... or another department, or maybe [she has] submitted her resignation, I don’t know).
[6] Version 2. I, as a head of department elected until 2013, and after having received a certain amount of compensation on which we would agree (for example, LVL 100,000), as provided for by my agreement with the University, agree terms with you, the dispute is terminated and I leave the post.
[7] Of course I understand that at the constituent assembly of the University you, as Rector, can secure a decision that is favourable to you. However by this means nothing would come to an end but would only start, as I reserve the right to appeal against all the decision [adopted by] the University in the administrative, district and regional courts, while of course making everything public beforehand and attracting the attention of society.
[8] I do not believe that in an election year, taking into consideration the latest news (the conclusion adopted by the State Audit Office on the illegalities at the University, plagiarism on the part of lecturers and professors of the University etc.), you would want to have additional tasks and trouble (nodarbošanos un nepatikšanas).
[9] I am sure that I don’t want this and I wish to be allowed to work in a creative manner with students in my field as before. In addition, I have much work to do organising two large European congresses in 2011 and 2012 in Riga, in both of which my participation as president has been confirmed.
[10] Since I have also not received the list of members of the constituent assembly of the University (which was requested from you and the Senate in my letter of 3 March 2010!?, a fact which demonstrates the lack of democracy [at] the University), I will await a reply from you by Monday, 22 March 2010 at 11 a.m. If we are unable to reach agreement by signing a settlement agreement I will make all my current information public in the form of an open letter so that the members of the constituent assembly of the University also have at least one day before the meeting to think about their vote.
Professor A. Rubins P.S. [contains a request concerning one of the applicant’s staff members who was on sick leave but at the same time attended meetings of the Senate]. 14.  On 22 March 2010 the Rector replied to the applicant that he could not agree to any of the proposals. 15.  The following day, 23 March 2010, at the meeting of the constituent assembly of the University, the applicant expressed his disagreement with the reorganisation and asked that the decision concerning the merger of faculties be annulled. His request was not upheld. On the same day the national news agency LETA published the applicant’s views about the alleged shortcomings in the management of the University. The criticisms referred to the conclusions of the State Audit Office. 16.  On 25 and 31 March 2010 the Rector asked an ad hoc investigative committee and the ethics committee to review the applicant’s conduct. 17.  On 6 May 2010 the applicant received a notice of termination of employment (uzteikums) from the University, in which he was informed that his employment contract with the University would be terminated ten days after receipt of the notice. The legal basis for the applicant’s dismissal was section 101(1)(1) and (3) of the Labour Law, and the applicant was deemed to have acted in contravention of several provisions of the University’s staff regulations (see Relevant domestic law part, paragraphs 30 and 34 below). The notice stated, inter alia, as follows:
“The ground for dismissal is the email you sent to the Rector of [the University] on 20 [March] 2010, in which, while addressing the Rector concerning issues of interest to you, you included inappropriate demands, including elements of blackmail and undisguised threats. As a consequence your actions are considered as very grave infringements of basic ethical principles and standards of behaviour, and as absolutely contrary to good morals. The fact of sending such a letter, and its contents, are clearly contrary to good morals, all the more so taking into account the circumstances in which the letter was sent and your attitude.” 18.  On 17 May 2010 the University dismissed the applicant from his post. Soon afterwards he took up a post in another university in Latvia. 19.  The applicant submitted a claim to the Riga City Kurzeme District Court, asking the court to invalidate the notice of termination and to order his reinstatement and payment of the unpaid salary and benefits together with compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 20.  In a judgment of 11 March 2011 the Kurzeme District Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. It held that the fact that the applicant’s employer had been offended by his email was not a legitimate reason for his dismissal, since section 101 of the Labour Law did not include such a ground. The court considered that the allegation that the applicant’s email had contained elements of blackmail and threats was merely speculation on his employer’s behalf. It was additionally found that the applicant had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in the termination notice before that notice was sent to him. Accordingly the court annulled the termination notice and ordered the applicant’s reinstatement with back-payment of his salary. The applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage was rejected as unsubstantiated. 21.  Both the applicant and the University appealed. During the court hearing the applicant mentioned that he had requested that several illegalities be examined at the meeting of the constituent assembly of 23 March 2010. Counsel for the defendant stated that both the ad hoc investigative committees set up by the Rector had found that the content of the letter was to be perceived as blackmail and threats. He contended that the request to receive a certain amount in compensation and the deadline by which the reply had to be received all proved the breach of ethical norms. The defendant further alleged that several “defamatory facts about the University” had been published on 23 March by LETA, and considered that the above activities therefore confirmed the threats made in the applicant’s email. 22.  On 18 January 2012 the Riga Regional Court quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. The appeal court considered that in his email of 20 March 2010 the applicant had invited the Rector to carry out “unlawful actions”, namely to annul a decision of the Senate of the University (concerning the merger of two departments within the Faculty of Medicine). Such action was deemed to be “unlawful” because annulling decisions of the Senate of the University exceeded the Rector’s authority. The court also considered that the applicant had requested “unreasonably high compensation” for the termination of his employment. These two considerations led the appeal court to conclude that the applicant had failed to observe basic ethical principles such as honesty, collegiality and responsibility. 23.  The conclusions of the appeal court echoed those reached by the University’s ethics committee and by two ad hoc investigative committees set up on 25 March and 6 April 2010. In particular, the court observed in point 10.1 that the committee had concluded that the infringements committed by the applicant were demonstrated by the fact that he had sent the email and had carried out “other activities after the Senate’s decision of 23 February 2010 ... including making unfounded statements, for example, about the abolition of the department, the circumstances of the reorganisation that had been directed against the applicant, and threats made by G.B. against the applicant. The email of 28 February 2010 ... comprises statements, for example, about ... private life and religious convictions”. 24.  The court further noted that it was apparent from the materials in the case file that on 23 March 2010 the national news agency LETA had published the applicant’s views about events in the University, in which he had criticised the leadership of the University, stating that a group of twelve to fifteen persons had usurped all power and set up an authoritarian or even dictatorial regime. The court also referred to the content of the email the applicant had sent on 3 March 2010 (see paragraph 9 above) and came to the conclusion that he had contravened the obligation to treat the staff of the University with respect. 25.  The court turned next to the question of “good morals” and, after finding that this term had no precise legal definition, proceeded to conclude that it consisted of three “basic ethical principles”: “the principle of integrity and righteousness”, “the principle of responsibility” and “the principle of loyalty”. It found that the applicant had acted in breach of these principles and that there was:
“[11.2] ...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 interests of society. The content of the letter [of 20 March 2010] attests to [the applicant’s] wish to act for a selfish cause, namely to retain his position as a head of department, contrary to the Senate’s decision on reorganisation, or to receive substantial financial compensation, regardless of [the need to use] the budget of [the University] in an economical and reasonable way in compliance with the goals of the [University].
[The appeal court] finds that there is no evidence that prior to the letter of 20 March 2010 [the University] had obstructed the applicant’s democratic rights to inform society and the competent institutions about the alleged violations in the [University].
Taking into account the aforementioned finding, [that is], that the [applicant’s] aim in writing the letter of 20 March 2010 was selfish, the [appeal court] finds that the [applicant] sought to achieve a result beneficial to himself by trying to persuade [the Rector] to take unlawful steps. In view of the aforementioned considerations, this should be considered a threat.” 26.  Turning to the applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the appeal court cited section 9(1) of the Labour Law (see the Relevant domestic law part, paragraph 29 below) and disagreed that the applicant’s dismissal had created “unjustified consequences” (nepamatotas sekas) or caused non-pecuniary damage simply because the applicant had expressed legitimate concerns about the reorganisation of the University and about the way its financial resources were used. The court’s reasoning in that regard read as follows:
“[The appeal court], on the basis of experience and logic, finds that a calm and positive atmosphere and a respectful attitude among colleagues best contribute to achieving constructive dialogue.
Having analysed the above-mentioned evidence, the [appeal court] considers that nothing prevented the applicant from expressing his opinion in a manner compatible with ethics and the staff regulations”. 27.  The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law, disputing, inter alia, the appeal court’s findings to the effect that, by sending one confidential letter to one recipient (namely the Rector of the University), in which he had raised points concerning the unjustified use of funds from the State budget, he had committed an infringement of work-related rules and ethics of such gravity as to justify his dismissal. The applicant also invoked in this connection that he had an obligation to inform the society about the unjustified use of funds, therefore the appellate court had erred in finding that the impugned email was unethical. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was rejected by the Senate of the Supreme Court in a preparatory meeting on 26 September 2012. 28.  On 27 September 2010 the Rector of the University sought to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant for extortion. The criminal proceedings were instituted on 30 January 2012 on the basis of section 183 of the Criminal Law (extortion) and the applicant was ordered not to leave his permanent residence for more than twenty-four hours without the permission of the competent investigative authority. The criminal proceedings were discontinued on 9 February 2012 for lack of corpus delicti. The decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings stated, inter alia, that according to the linguistic expert’s conclusions the impugned email contained clearly expressed demands to pay a certain amount of money as well as undisguised threats to disclose disreputable information about [the Rector] prior to the meeting of the Senate. It also noted that the email demonstrated the applicant’s wish to act selfishly, either in order to maintain his post or to receive a significant amount in compensation for the termination of his employment contract. However, as the Rector’s attitude demonstrated that the threats were not perceived as real, the court ruled that the criminal proceedings should be terminated and that the Rector had the right to institute defamation proceedings.
II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Relevant domestic law and practice 29.  Section 9 of the Labour Law (a whistle-blowers’ protection clause) provides that an employee may not be punished or otherwise directly or indirectly subjected to unfavourable treatment, in the context of employment relations, for exercising his rights in a permissible manner [pieļaujamā veidā] or informing the competent authorities or officials about suspicions of criminal or administrative offences in his place of employment. If, in the event of a dispute, an employee reports such circumstances which could serve as a basis for unfavourable treatment by his or her employer, it is the employer’s duty to prove that the employee has not been punished or otherwise unfavourably affected, either directly or indirectly, for having exercised his or her rights in the context of employment relations in a permissible manner. 30.  Section 101(1)(1) and (3) of the Labour Law authorises employers to dismiss an employee only on the basis of circumstances related to the employee’s conduct or his or her abilities, or in connection with the performance of economic, organisational, technological or similar functions within the company if (1) “the employee, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, has committed significant infringements of his or her employment contract or terms of employment” and (3) “the employee has fulfilled his or her duties in a manner that disregards good morals [labi tikumi] and such actions are not compatible with his or her continued employment.” 31.  The same section further provides that if an employer intends to issue a notice of termination of an employment contract on the basis of, inter alia, the first paragraph, sub-paragraphs 1 and 3 of this section, the employer has a duty to request written explanations from the employee. When deciding on the possible termination of the employment contract the employer has a duty to evaluate the severity of the violation at issue and the circumstances in which it was committed, as well as the personal characteristics of the employee and his or her previous work record. 32.  Point 3.2 of the constituent document of the University (Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes Satversme) provides that the Rector or the Senate may convene the constituent assembly of the University. The Rector, the Senate or the student self-government body may convene an extraordinary meeting of the constituent assembly. Pursuant to point 3.8 the Rector has a right of suspensive veto (atliekošā veto tiesības) over decisions adopted by the Senate. 33.  Point 5.1 of the statue of the Senate (Senāta nolikums) provides that Senate meetings are convened, inter alia, at the initiative of the Rector. 34.  The relevant provisions of the staff regulations in force at the University at the material time read as follows: 6.2.1. – employees have a responsibility to carry out work of good quality in accordance with their contract and job description, the constitution of the University, decisions of the Senate, internal regulations and orders and the external legislation of the Republic of Latvia. 35.  According to the view of the Senate of the Supreme Court, published in a compilation of case-law on employment disputes, the final assessment of whether an infringement [of an employment contract or staff regulation] is grave lies with the domestic courts. Furthermore, the term “good morals” (section 101, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 3 of the Labour Law) is applicable not only to work carried out within the specified working hours but may also refer to employment-related functions performed outside regular working hours. Since the legislature failed to define the term “good morals”, this term has been acknowledged to be a general clause the content of which has to be defined by the courts’ case-law. According to present-day case-law and legal science, the term “good morals”, in addition to its social character, also has a legal dimension, that is, it encompasses not only generally accepted moral standards but also ethical principles and values enshrined, inter alia, in the Constitution. Thus, according to the Senate, the reference to the term “good morals” is a general clause the content of which has to be determined by those who apply the law.