12 RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT the applicant’s rights under Article 10, it is apparent from the facts of the case and the review of the domestic courts (see paragraphs 22-26 above) that the crux of the employment dispute was the allegedly unethical manner of expression used by the applicant in communication with his employer. 46. Moreover, the applicant in substance brought the issue concerning the infringement of his freedom of expression before the domestic courts (see paragraph 27 above), and the domestic courts addressed it (see paragraph 26 above). In any event the Government did not raise any objections claiming non-exhaustion. 47. Having regard to the central issue in the dispute the Court accepts that Article 10 is applicable to the facts of the case (compare and contrast Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria, no. 35745/05, § 53, 11 December 2012; see also and Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, § 30). 48. Turning to the next preliminary objection raised by the Government, namely that the impugned email contained remarks not covered by the protection of the Convention in the light of Article 17 thereof, the Court considers that the present application is to be clearly distinguished from the cases relied on by the Government in which the expression of negation or revision of certain facts was removed from the protection of Article 10. In the present case, the Court is unable to conclude from the text of the impugned email that it contained anything aimed at weakening or destroying the ideals and values of a democratic society (see, for example, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 99, ECHR 2006-IV). 49. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection that the present application falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae. C. Conclusion 50. The application cannot therefore be declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae. The Court further considers that the application raises issues of law and fact which require examination of the merits. 51. It accordingly concludes that the application is not manifestly illfounded. Having also established that no other obstacles to its admissibility exist, the Court, having joined to the merits the objection raised in connection with incompatibility ratione personae, declares it admissible. II ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 52. The applicant complained that his dismissal violated Article 10 of the Convention, since he had been punished for expressing a legitimate opinion about problems prevailing in the University and for attempting to