ANNEN v. GERMANY – JUDGMENT 11 proceedings, the statements printed in the leaflet had also been included on the webpage. 47. Referring to the Court’s judgment in the case Hoffer and Annen v. Germany (nos. 397/07 and 2322/02, 13 January 2011), the Government also pointed out that the parallels drawn with the Holocaust in both the leaflets and the webpage constituted, in the historical and social context, a very serious violation of the doctors’ personality rights as protected by Article 8 of the Convention. They further submitted that the applicant had created a massive “pillory effect” by singling out the doctors. The impact of the applicant’s campaign on the doctors’ professional and private lives had to be taken into account. According to one of the doctors, the address list published on the applicant’s webpage had been the first link to appear in a “google” search. As a consequence of the negative public attention, the doctors had closed the day clinic and had to build up another professional practice. 2. The third parties’ submissions (a) Alliance Defending Freedom and Aktion Lebensrecht für Alle (ADF/ALfA) 48. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Aktion Lebensrecht für Alle (ALfA) considered that the issue of abortion was one of great public interest and concern. They pointed out that the debate was often characterised by strong language on both sides. However, referring to the Court’s case-law, the ADF and ALfA emphasised that controversial opinions expressed in the course of an intense political debate of public interest were protected under Article 10, even if formulated in strong, offensive, shocking or disturbing language. Furthermore, given the importance of campaign groups in the democratic process, they submitted that there had to be significant reasons for any restrictions on pro-life campaigning. They invited the Court to find that the so-called protection of personality rights – a right which, according to the ADF and ALfA, was not found in the Convention – was not a sufficient reason for interfering with the freedom of speech of pro-life groups. (b) European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) 49. In addition to the arguments also brought forward by the ADF and ALfA, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) stressed that the applicant, when referring to Auschwitz and the Nazi regime, had neither intended to trivialise nor to exploit the Holocaust nor to interfere with the doctors’ reputation but had pursued, especially with regard to his German audience, the legitimate aim of pointing out the difference between legality and justice. Moreover, the ECLJ argued that the abortion-Holocaust comparison had long been drawn in the debate, for example in pro-life campaigns in Poland and the United States of America.