RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 15 principles of ethics and breached the University’s staff regulations and the provisions of the Labour Law. Therefore the content of the email written by the applicant – an incitement to perform illegal activities – did not enjoy the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention. Moreover, the Government asserted that the applicant had failed to substantiate which prior public remarks had formed the alleged basis for his dismissal, and pointed out that the Rector had not made any statements to the effect that the applicant should be dismissed from the University because of his criticism towards it. 60. Accordingly, the Government contended that there had been no interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10. Nevertheless, should the Court consider that there had been interference with the applicant’s rights protected by Article 10, the Government alleged that it had been prescribed by law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary. (b) Whether the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim 61. The Government contended that the alleged interference – the applicant’s dismissal – was based on section 101(1) and (3), which allowed the termination of employment relationships in the event of grave and unjustified breaches of an employment contract or staff regulations or if the employee, when performing his or her duties at work, acted contrary to good morals. Similarly, the Government argued that the interference had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others within the meaning of Article 10. (c) Whether the interference was necessary 62. Relying on the Court’s case-law the Government observed that the Court must examine the question of necessity essentially from the standpoint of the relevance and sufficiency of the reasons provided by the domestic courts. In doing so the Court might be required to take into account whether the domestic courts had struck the requisite balance between, on the one hand, freedom of expression and, on the other hand, the right of others to respect for their private life, and that a distinction must be made between criticism and insult. 63. The Government referred to the protection afforded to employees under section 9 of the Labour Law and subscribed to the principle that the applicant, as a professor, was entitled to express his criticism and present his opinion to the university’s management. At the same time employees were expected to act in good faith and had a duty of loyalty and discretion towards their employers (see Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), and national authorities could be justified in insisting that employment relations should be based on mutual trust (see