RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 19 themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298). 78. In the context of employment disputes the Court has noted that employees owe to their employer a duty of loyalty, reserve and discretion (see, for instance, Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 85, 26 February 2009, Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011 (extracts) ), and that in striking a fair balance the limits of the right to freedom of expression and the reciprocal rights and obligations specific to employment contracts and the professional environment must be taken into account (see Palomo Sánchez and Others, cited above, § 74). 79. Therefore the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks held against the applicant and the professional context in which he made them (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 40, Series A no. 103, and Palomo Sánchez and Others, cited above, § 70). (b) Application of those principles 80. The Court refers to its observations and findings set forth above (see the paragraphs 67-71 above) and observes that the crucial issue before the domestic courts was whether the content of the impugned email sent by the applicant amounted to a violation of the provisions of the Labour Law and the University staff regulations, which require employees to carry out their professional duties in accordance with “good morals”. In this connection the Court refers to the defendant’s submissions during the court hearing in which it submitted that the email contained threats and blackmail and that the applicant had fulfilled his threats by publicly divulging defamatory statements about his employer (see paragraph 21 above). The applicant, on the other hand, alleged both in his appeal on points of law and during the court hearing that an indication of an intention to publish true information about the mismanagement of State funds could not possibly be considered as blackmail or threats (see paragraph 27 above). In reaching their conclusion about the lawfulness of the applicant’s dismissal the domestic courts analysed the applicant’s motivation and concluded that it ran counter to the ethical principles enshrined in the concept of “good morals” under section 101 of the Labour Law. 81. The Court considers that the above reasoning by the domestic courts is relevant in the context of the specific features of labour relations, especially when it comes to weighing up conflicting interests in the workplace (see Palomo Sánchez and Others, cited above, § 65). 82. As to the further question whether those reasons were sufficient for the purposes of Article 10, the Court must take into account the nature of the applicant’s labour dispute and the overall background against which the impugned email was written. The Court will therefore look at such factors as the public interest of the impugned remarks, their form and