OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION of their individual reputation and interests solely on the basis of this authority’s “scale of operation” (paragraph 48 of the judgment). 5. Admittedly, the Court has acknowledged at times that a legal entity’s right to reputation (including the scope of such right) is debatable and has emphasised a difference between the reputational interests of a legal entity (including a public authority) and the reputation of an individual. That did not alter its finding in another recent case that the same legitimate aim could be relied upon in respect of Moscow City Council, although its interest in protecting its “reputation” did not necessarily attract the same level of guarantees as that accorded to “the protection of the reputation ... of others” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 (see Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019). 6. We consider the latter point to be of great relevance to the present case, which also concerned a set of defamation proceedings brought against an applicant by a similar public institution, the Administration of the Volgograd Region. The interest of preserving the Court’s case-law consistency should therefore have led the Chamber to follow the established approach by accepting the existence of the legitimate aim and by considering the proportionality of the interference with due regard to the difference in the “level of guarantees” applicable to different public entities depending on their status and the nature of their activities. 7. While it cannot be excluded that defamation proceedings could be intended to have a chilling effect on those who criticise the authorities’ activities, the existence of such an illegitimate aim cannot be presumed, let alone taken for granted, without tangible evidence to that effect. In any event, the determination of the limits of acceptable criticism lends itself to be assessed through the balancing exercise under the proportionality test, in line with the Court’s established case-law. The necessity of the interference in a democratic society 8. The publication at the heart of the present case contributed to a debate of public interest and the impugned statements represented Mr S.’s value judgment, which was not devoid of any factual basis. In such circumstances, in view of the respective position of the claimant as a public authority and the applicant company as a media outlet, having regard to the fact that the impugned statements had concerned matters of public administration, and admitting that the applicant company did not make allegations of illegal conduct, the domestic authorities had a narrow margin of appreciation in assessing the need for the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. 9. Where a public authority (and not its individual officials) resorts to defamation proceedings in relation to criticism by the media, it is incumbent on the domestic courts examining institutional defamation claims to provide 16