10 ANNEN v. GERMANY - JUDGMENT 43. Regarding the webpage, the applicant further stated that he was no longer able to submit the exact content of the disputed webpage at the time relevant for the civil injunction. Nevertheless, he presented screenshots of similar sites offering a general overview of the webpage’s former content and layout. He contested the screenshots presented by the Government, arguing that they had been taken from other webpages not relevant for the present application. The applicant also emphasised that the domestic courts had failed to take into account the context and the layout of the webpage listing the doctors’ names and the day clinic’s address. He specified that the doctors’ names were not mentioned on the first page of his website, but only under the link “death or life”/“request for prayers for Germany” (Gebetsanliegen für Deutschland), asking visitors to the page to pray for those who performed, assisted with or supported abortions. The information affecting the two doctors had been organised in an alphabetical list ranking the cities concerned. (b) The Government 44. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been justified as the domestic courts had given precedence to the doctors’ personality rights after having properly classified, assessed and weighed the conflicting positions. 45. The Government further claimed that an average citizen, when confronted with the applicant’s statements in the leaflet, would have come to the conclusion that abortions had been performed contrary to the relevant laws and that the doctors had, therefore, committed criminal offences. Although the applicant had corrected this impression, the clarification had not been sufficient. The Government pointed out that the layout of the leaflet had been intended to disguise the clarification which had been set in smaller letters and to focus the reader’s attention on the statement that ��unlawful abortions” had been performed. 46. Furthermore, the Government argued that the complete prohibition on publishing the doctors’ names and the day clinic’s address on the webpage was proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. They stated that the applicant had not been prohibited from expressing his critical opinion of abortion in general. Moreover, while admitting that no screenshots of the applicant’s webpage had been included in the courts’ case files, the Government presented screenshots of several current webpages also created by the applicant which they claimed to be similar to the one that he had set up at the relevant time. They emphasised that the website’s layout had included a left-hand frame showing the pulse of a baby’s heart, blood dripping down and other explicit images. Dramatically worded statements comparing abortions to the Holocaust had been displayed prominently on the webpage. According to the applicant’s statement in the domestic