4 MATÚZ v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT publication of internal documents of his former employer. The court expressly excluded from its scrutiny the question whether or not the applicant’s freedom of expression justified, in the circumstances, a formal breach of his labour contract. This decision was served on 13 July 2010. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 17. Article 61 of the Constitution, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: “1. In the Republic of Hungary everyone shall have the right to freely express his opinion and to access to and to disseminate information of public interest.” Section 96 of Act no. XXII of 1992 on the Labour Code, as in force at the material time, read as follows: “(1) An employer or employee may terminate an employment relationship by summary dismissal/resignation in the event that the other party: a) wilfully or by gross negligence commits a grave violation of any substantive obligations arising from the employment relationship...” THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 18. The applicant complained that his dismissal from the State television company on the ground of publishing a book including internal documents of his employer amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression and in particular his right to impart information and ideas to third parties. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Government contested this view.