RUBINS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 13 resolve his employment situation. Article 10 of the Convention 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.” A. The parties’ submissions 1. The applicant (a) The interference 53. The applicant drew attention to the chronology of the events and contended that the impugned email of 20 March 2010 had merely been used as a pretext to dismiss him and that the real reason for his dismissal was his persistent criticism of the University. He dismissed the Government’s argument that he had not been prevented from exercising his right to freedom of expression and considered that his dismissal constituted interference with his rights protected under Article 10 of the Convention. (b) Whether the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim 54. The applicant further contested the assertion that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim. Firstly, he contended that the legal basis on which the interference was grounded fell short of the requisite quality in that the court had assessed facts that were not included in the notice of termination (uzteikums). In particular, he drew the Court’s attention to the fact that even though the notice of termination referred solely to his email sent on 20 March 2010, the Riga Regional Court had reached its conclusions by relying on other events which had taken place before and after the impugned email. He also noted that it was only after the LETA news agency had published his views that his employer had found the email to be threatening and contrary to good morals. 55. Secondly, the applicant disputed that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim and alleged that, as the University was a State-owned establishment, the public had a right to find out how their tax money was spent. He claimed that other colleagues had also opposed the lack of