RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 17 to whether the dismissal was based solely on the impugned email sent by the applicant to the Rector of the University on 20 March 2010, or rather on the persistent criticism expressed by the applicant prior to sending the impugned email. 69. In this connection the Court observes that in reaching their conclusion about the lawfulness of the applicant’s dismissal the domestic courts relied on evidence which contained references to other activities carried out by the applicant prior to his sending the impugned email (see paragraph 23 above). This would imply that the applicant’s prior activities in expressing criticism played some role in deciding whether the applicant’s dismissal had been lawful. 70. But even assuming that the dismissal was based solely on the impugned email, the Court refers back to its reasoning in relation to the nature of the dispute in question and the applicability of Article 10 (see paragraph 45 above), and considers that the applicant’s dismissal did amount to interference within the meaning of that provision. Such interference will constitute a breach of Article 10 unless it is “prescribed by law”, pursues a legitimate aim under paragraph 2 of that Article and is “necessary in a democratic society” for the achievement of such an aim. These issues will be discussed below. 71. The Court further dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection that the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 10 (see paragraph 37 above). 2. Whether the interference was “prescribed by law” and served a legitimate aim 72. The Court observes that the applicant also disputed the lawfulness of the impugned measure and its aim. In particular he contested the quality of section 101 of the Labour Law. 73. The Court notes that the applicant’s dismissal was based on section 101 of the Labour Law (see “Relevant domestic law”, paragraph 30 above). It was alleged that in carrying out his duties he had acted contrary to “good morals” [labi tikumi] and that such actions were incompatible with his continued employment. The notice of dismissal also referred to three paragraphs of the University staff regulations (see paragraphs 32-34 above). In applying the above legislation to the facts of the case the domestic courts analysed whether the content of the impugned email was compatible with several ethical principles; this, according to domestic practice, was sufficiently foreseeable (see paragraph 35 above). Although the applicant contested the quality of the above provisions and their application by the domestic courts, the measure was based on sufficiently clear provisions of domestic law according to which employees owed to their employer a duty of loyalty, reserve and discretion (see Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, § 70, ECHR 2008). The Court reiterates in this connection that even if the