BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT (ii) How well known the person concerned was and his prior conduct 32. With regard to how well known P. was and his prior conduct, the domestic courts noted that he was not a public figure and had never sought public attention (see paragraph 11 above). In this connection, the Court reiterates that a distinction has to be made between persons acting in a public context, as political or public figures, and a private individual unknown to the public who may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life (see Von Hannover (no. 2), cited above, § 110). Beyond political figures, the status of public figure may be applied to any persons who, through their acts or their position, have entered the public arena (see Kapsis and Danikas v. Greece, no. 52137/12, § 35, 19 January 2017, with further references). Since P. acted in his capacity as a police officer, not seeking public attention, there is no indication that he could be considered a public figure in this sense. 33. Turning to the argument put forward by the third party regarding law-enforcement officers exercising their official functions (see paragraph 24 above), the Court would reiterate that it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent to which politicians do and should therefore be treated on an equal footing with the latter when it comes to criticism of their actions (see Milosavljević v. Serbia, no. 57574/14, § 60, 25 May 2021, and Stancu and Others v. Romania, no. 22953/16, § 116, 18 October 2022, the latter concerning criticism levelled against a public prosecutor). Nevertheless, the Court has recognised that in some circumstances, civil servants, when acting in an official capacity, are subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals (see Stancu and Others, §§ 114-15, cited above; see also Chkhartishvili v. Georgia, no. 31349/20, § 56, 11 May 2023). This is the case, for example, in the case of alleged misconduct. 34. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the CCTV footage published by the applicant company showed P. in his official capacity as a police officer during a police intervention which involved the use of force (see paragraphs 6 and 9 above). While the Court is mindful that police brutality is a matter of serious public concern and that the press has a vital interest in bringing such allegations to the public’s attention (see Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 33, 14 October 2008; for the relevance of the presumption of innocence when determining the necessity of an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression, see Axel Springer SE and RTL Television GmbH v. Germany, no. 51405/12, § 42, 21 September 2017), the Court notes that in the present case the applicant company did not argue that P. had been involved in any kind of misconduct. 35. The Court considers that, while in some circumstances civil servants may be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary citizens, in the absence of allegations of prior misconduct they are not deprived of a legitimate interest in protecting their private life against, inter alia, falsely being portrayed as abusing their office. This also applies to police officers. 9