OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT and Morris, cited above, § 94) that would warrant legal protection. Nor could it be said that its members were as “easily identifiable” as members of the Water and Forestry Commission in Luxembourg (see Thoma, cited above, § 56) or members of the Fgura Local Council representing 12,000 inhabitants (see paragraph 39 above) given the scale of its operations: in 2010 the population of the Volgograd Region exceeded two and a half million. In any event, the defamation case was brought on behalf of the legal entity as such, not any of its individual members. 49. Accordingly, the Court finds that the civil defamation proceedings instituted by the Administration of the Volgograd Region against the applicant company did not pursue any of the legitimate aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention. Where it has been shown that the interference did not pursue a “legitimate aim”, it is not necessary to investigate whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 117, 23 October 2008). 50. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 51. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 52. The applicant company did not make any claims for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1. Declares the application admissible; 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 March 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Milan Blaško Registrar Georges Ravarani President 13