OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION compelling reasons capable of demonstrating convincingly that members of the media acted in bad faith or in flagrant disregard of the tenets of responsible journalism when making allegedly defamatory statements. Any failure to do so would run contrary to the positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention requiring States to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear (see Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 54204/08, § 68, 29 January 2015). 10. We are not satisfied, however, that the existence of a pressing social need for the interference complained of was convincingly established by the domestic authorities in the circumstances of the present case. Indeed, the domestic courts paid no heed to the positions of the parties to the defamation proceedings as a public authority and a media outlet. Nor did they make the necessary distinction between the statements of fact and the value judgement conveying the criticism against the Administration of the Volgograd Region. The domestic courts thus failed to apply the standards embodied in Article 10 of the Convention, including those reiterated in Ruling no. 16 of 15 June 2010 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia (see paragraph 21 of the present judgment). 11. The authorities therefore failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference in question and the legitimate aim pursued (see, among others, Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 49, 8 October 2009; OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017; Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 100, 13 June 2017; Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 39, 5 March 2019; Nadtoka v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29097/08, § 50, 8 October 2019; Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182/11, § 56, 2 June 2020; and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, § 71, 8 September 2020). 12. We have accordingly concluded that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case. 17