OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 44. The Court considers that bodies of the executive vested with State powers are essentially different from legal entities, including public or Stateowned corporations, engaged in competitive activities in the marketplace as the latter rely on their good reputation to attract customers with a view to making a profit and the former exist to serve the public and are funded by taxpayers. To prevent abuse of powers and corruption of public office in a democratic system, a public authority’s activities of all kinds must be subject to the close scrutiny not only of the legislative and judicial authorities but also of public opinion (see Sener v. Turkey, no. 26680/95, § 40, 18 July 2000). 45. In Steel and Morris (cited above, § 40) the Court noted the position under the laws of England and Wales, whereby “local authorities, government-owned corporations and political parties... [cannot] sue in defamation, because of the public interest that a democratically elected organisation, or a body controlled by such an organisation, should be open to uninhibited public criticism.” Indeed, shielding bodies of the executive, which have the ability to respond to any adverse allegations in the “court of public opinion” through their public relations capabilities, from media criticism by way of according them protection of their “business reputation” may seriously hamper freedom of the media. That executive bodies be allowed to bring defamation proceedings against members of the media places an excessive and disproportionate burden on the media and could have an inevitable chilling effect on the media in the performance of their task of purveyor of information and public watchdog (see, mutatis mutandis, Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia (no. 25968/02, § 43, 31 July 2007). 46. The Court considers that, by virtue of its role in a democratic society, the interests of a body of the executive vested with State powers in maintaining a good reputation essentially differ from both the right to reputation of natural persons and the reputational interests of legal entities, private or public, that compete in the marketplace. 47. It follows that civil defamation proceedings brought, in its own name, by a legal entity that exercises public power may not, as a general rule, be regarded to be in pursuance of the legitimate aim of “the protection of the reputation ... of others” under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. This does not exclude that individual members of a public body, who could be “easily identifiable” in view of the limited number of its members and the nature of the allegations made against them (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 56, ECHR 2001-III, and, mutatis mutandis, Lombardo and Others, cited above, § 54), may be entitled to bring defamation proceedings in their own individual name. 48. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the claimant in the domestic defamation proceedings is the highest body of the executive of the Volgograd Region. It is hardly conceivable that it had an “interest in protecting its commercial success and viability”, be it for “the benefit of shareholders and employees” or “for the wider economic good” (see Steel 12