OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT A. Admissibility 25. The Court notes that the application is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The applicant company 26. The applicant company submitted that the interference had not been “prescribed by law”. Article 152 of the Russian Civil Code, as it stood at the material time, spoke of “honour and dignity” of “citizens”, that is, natural persons, and of “business reputation” of a legal entity, and yet the Administration of the Volgograd Region being a body of the executive could not engage in any business activities and thus could not enjoy any “business reputation”. On the same grounds, the applicant company argued that it could not be said that the interference complained of had pursued a “legitimate aim” of protecting the reputation of others. They referred in this connection to the PACE Report on Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation of 3 June 2005 (doc. 10568) (see paragraph 22 above). 27. The applicant company submitted that the interference complained of had not corresponded to any “pressing social need”. The Convention as interpreted by the Court does not accord any special level of protection to public officials. 28. The domestic courts had failed to pay heed to the Supreme Court’s Resolution no. 3 of 24 February 2005 requiring to distinguish statements of fact from value judgments even though Mr S. in the course of the interview had clearly stated that he had been expressing his personal opinion. Moreover, Mr S.’s opinion had been based on the facts as shown before the District Court. (b) The Government 29. Accepting that there had been an interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, the Government argued that it had been lawful, pursued a legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others and had been proportionate to the aim pursued. They noted that the applicant company had “disseminated through media the statements that [had] tarnished the reputation of representatives of the State authorities”. 30. In particular, the Government observed that “as follow[ed] from the analysis of the meaning of the impugned fragments of the article, these fragments contain[ed] information that the Administration of the Volgograd Region [had] lobbied the interests of the Volzhanin factory and that the 8