22 RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT regard (see paragraph 10 above), the national court did not assess the language used therein. Moreover, as the Court has already noted (see paragraph 84 above), neither in the impugned email nor in the subsequent publication did the applicant divulge any private information damaging to the honour and dignity of his colleagues or his employer in general. (iv) Severity of the measure 92. Lastly, the Government submitted that the applicant’s career had not been affected and that therefore the measure – his dismissal – could not be considered as severe. The Court notes that this was the harshest sanction available and, disregarding the fact that the applicant took up a post in another university soon afterwards, was liable to have a serious chilling effect on other employees of the University and to discourage them from raising criticism (see Palomo Sánchez and Others, cited above, § 75). The Court finds that it is difficult to justify the application of such a severe sanction. (c) Conclusion 93. In the light of the above the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection as to the incompatibility ratione personae of the application and finds that the reasons relied on by the domestic courts, although relevant, are not sufficient to show that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and, accordingly, was “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 94. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 95. The applicant claimed 58,703.50 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 96. The Government contested the claim and argued that the applicant’s claims were speculative and excessive. 97. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a result of his dismissal. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 8,000.