6 MATÚZ v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 2. The Court’s assessment a. Existence of an interference 25. The Court observes that the decision to dismiss the applicant from the television company was prompted by the publication of his book, without further examination of the applicant’s professional ability. Accordingly, the measure complained of essentially related to the exercise of freedom of expression (see Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII, and Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 79, 26 February 2009). 26. The Court reiterates that the protection of Article 10 of the Convention extends to the workplace in general. It notes at this juncture that the applicant was at the service of the State-owned television company, albeit under a Labour Code statute. In this regard, the Court recalls that Article 10 of the Convention applies not only to employment relationships governed by public law, but also those under private law. In addition, in certain cases, the State has a positive obligation to protect the right to freedom of expression even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, no. 39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000). 27. The Court considers that the disciplinary measure dismissing the applicant for publishing a book containing confidential information about his employer, as endorsed by the Hungarian courts, constituted an interference with the exercise of the right protected by Article 10 of the Convention 28. An interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 § 1 will infringe the Convention if it does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 10. It should therefore be determined whether it was “prescribed by law”, whether it pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in that paragraph and whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve those aims. b. Whether the interference was “prescribed by law” 29. The Court observes, and it is common ground between the parties, that the applicant was dismissed on the basis of section 96(1) of the Labour Code for having breached his obligations under point 10 of his labour contract. c. Whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim 30. The Court accepts that the legitimate aim pursued by the impugned measure was the prevention of the disclosure of confidential information as well as “the protection of the reputation or rights of others” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.