RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 9 right of suspensive veto (atliekošā veto tiesības) over decisions adopted by the Senate. 33. Point 5.1 of the statue of the Senate (Senāta nolikums) provides that Senate meetings are convened, inter alia, at the initiative of the Rector. 34. The relevant provisions of the staff regulations in force at the University at the material time read as follows: 6.1.2. – employees must carry out their tasks conscientiously and honestly; 6.1.7. – employees must treat other members of the University staff with respect; 6.2.1. – employees have a responsibility to carry out work of good quality in accordance with their contract and job description, the constitution of the University, decisions of the Senate, internal regulations and orders and the external legislation of the Republic of Latvia. 3. Practice on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Labour Law 35. According to the view of the Senate of the Supreme Court, published in a compilation of case-law on employment disputes, the final assessment of whether an infringement [of an employment contract or staff regulation] is grave lies with the domestic courts. Furthermore, the term “good morals” (section 101, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 3 of the Labour Law) is applicable not only to work carried out within the specified working hours but may also refer to employment-related functions performed outside regular working hours. Since the legislature failed to define the term “good morals”, this term has been acknowledged to be a general clause the content of which has to be defined by the courts’ case-law. According to present-day caselaw and legal science, the term “good morals”, in addition to its social character, also has a legal dimension, that is, it encompasses not only generally accepted moral standards but also ethical principles and values enshrined, inter alia, in the Constitution. Thus, according to the Senate, the reference to the term “good morals” is a general clause the content of which has to be determined by those who apply the law. THE LAW I. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 36. The Government advanced two sets of preliminary objections. Firstly, they contended that the applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Secondly, the