8 MATÚZ v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT In this context the Court is also mindful that employees owe to their employer a duty of loyalty, reserve and discretion (see Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323; and Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2 September 1998, § 55, Reports 1998-VI). Accordingly, the measure by which the applicant was dismissed from his position for the breach of confidence is not as such incompatible with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention. 33. For the Court, the position of the applicant in the present case – that is, him being a journalist employed by the State television company under the general labour law – might be distinguishable from that of an employee in the public sector proper signalling illegal conduct or wrongdoing in the workplace in a situation where the employee or civil servant concerned is the only person, or part of a small category of persons, aware of what is happening at work and is thus best placed to act in the public interest by alerting the employer or the public at large (see Marchenko v. Ukraine, no. 4063/04, § 46, 19 February 2009; Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Bucur and Toma v. Romania, no. 40238/02, § 93, 8 January 2013). However, there is no need to decide on whether the applicant, an employee of the State television company which plays a crucial role in societal communication, falls into the same category, from the perspective of Article 10, as civil servants. This is so because the public interest attaching to the transparent editing of programs of the State television would have required in any case a domestic scrutiny of the proportionality of the impugned measure. 34. Where the right to freedom of expression of a person bound by professional confidentiality is being balanced against the right of employers to manage their staff, the relevant criteria have been laid down in the Court’s case-law as follows (see Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, §§ 74-78, ECHR 2008): (a) public interest involved in the disclosed information; (b) authenticity of the information disclosed; (c) the damage, if any, suffered by the authority as a result of the disclosure in question; (d) the motive behind the actions of the reporting employee; (e) whether, in the light of duty of discretion owed by an employee toward his or her employer, the information was made public as a last resort, following disclosure to a superior or other competent body; and (f) severity of the sanction imposed. 35. Moreover, in order to assess the justification of an impugned measure, it must be borne in mind that the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded (see, mutatis mutandis, Steel and Morris, cited above, § 95) are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10. The absence of an effective judicial review of the impugned measure may also lead to a violation of Article 10 (see Saygılı and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006, and Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-56, 20 October 2009). If the reasoning of the