14 ANNEN v. GERMANY - JUDGMENT Convention by the person who was the subject of that statement. Indeed, as a matter of principle these rights deserve equal respect. Accordingly, the margin of appreciation should in principle be the same in both cases (compare Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 88 with further references). 57. Where the balancing exercise between those two rights has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts (see MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155, 18 January 2011; Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 88; Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 66, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). (b) Application of the above principles to the present case (i) Order to desist from further disseminating leaflets in the immediate vicinity of the day clinic 58. Turning to the circumstances of the instant case the Court notes, at the outset, that the domestic courts expressly acknowledged that the applicant’s statement in the leaflet addressed questions of public interest and that he was allowed to pursue his political aims even by the use of exaggerated and polemic criticism. The courts also accepted that there was an assumption in favour of freedom of expression in cases of this kind. 59. The Court further observes that the domestic courts found that the applicant had created the erroneous impression that abortions had been performed outside the legal conditions, because the whole layout of the leaflet was intended to draw the reader’s attention to the first sentence set in bold letters, while the further explanation was set in smaller letters with the intent of dissimulating its content. Furthermore, the domestic courts held that the applicant had created a massive “pillory effect” by singling out the two doctors. This had been further aggravated by the Holocaust reference. 60. The Court notes that the German law, under section 218a of the Criminal Code, draws a fine line between abortions which are considered to be “unlawful”, but exempt from criminal liability, and those abortions which are considered as justified and thus “lawful” (see paragraphs 26 to 28 above). It follows that the applicant’s statement that “unlawful abortions” had been performed was correct from a judicial point of view (see Annen v. Germany (dec.), nos. 2373/07 and 2396/07, 30 March 2010). 61. The Court moreover considers that – although the leaflet’s layout was clearly designed to draw the reader’s attention to the first sentence set in bold letters – the very wording of the applicant’s further explanation, according to which the abortions were not subject to criminal liability, was sufficiently clear, even from a layperson’s perspective. Although the assessment and interpretation of the factual background of a case is primarily a matter for the domestic courts, the Court, in the particular