The Court cannot but note that the reasoning provided by the domestic courts in the present case is not compliant with the general principles established under its case-law (see paragraph 15 above) and does not demonstrate that the courts duly examined whether the statements made about the applicant had overstepped the permissible bounds of freedom of expression (compare Yayla v. Turkey [Committee], no. 3914/10, § 21, 24 March 2020, and Ghimpu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova [Committee], no. 24791/14, § 34, 1 February 2022).