10 RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT Government put forward two grounds on the basis of which, in their view, the present application fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae. A. Incompatibility ratione personae 1. The parties’ submissions 37. The Government were firmly of the opinion that in the instant case the applicant could not arguably claim that he had suffered interference with his right to freedom of speech, as he had never been prevented from or punished for exercising that freedom. In this regard the Government referred to the judgment of the Riga Regional Court of 18 January 2012 in which it was acknowledged that the applicant’s employer had never prevented the applicant from exercising his democratic right to inform society and the competent authorities about the alleged shortcomings at the University. 38. The applicant contested that argument. He pointed out that his employer had subjected him to unfavourable treatment both before and after he had had the information published by the local news agency. The establishment of the ad hoc investigative committees and the Rector’s demands for the applicant to provide explanations for his email of 20 March 2010 had both contributed to the existence of an infringement. 2. The Court’s assessment 39. Since the arguments outlined above are pertinent and closely related to the analysis of the complaint under Article 10, the Court considers that the objection is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint. It will therefore deal with the objection in its examination of the merits below (see paragraphs73-74 below). B. Incompatibility ratione materiae 1. The parties’ submissions 40. The Government alleged that the applicant’s complaint did not fall under Article 10 of the Convention as it essentially concerned an employment dispute as to whether the applicant’s dismissal had been lawful under domestic law; it therefore concerned a labour dispute of a private-law nature. They noted that the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal had been gross infringements of the staff regulation and of ethical and behavioural norms which affected the University. Moreover, the Government emphasised that in his civil claim of 11 May 2010 the applicant had not made any allegations that the University had acted in violation of his freedom of speech.