ANNEN v. GERMANY – JUDGMENT 9 appeal proceedings (see Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 48, 19 September 2000 and Storck v. Germany (dec.), no. 61603/00, 26 October 2004). 38. The Court further notes that the Federal Constitutional Court considered the applicant’s constitutional complaint to be inadmissible without, however, indicating with which admissibility requirement the applicant had failed to comply. 39. Having regard to the material before it, the Court notes that the applicant, represented by counsel, in his submissions to the Federal Constitutional Court raised in substance the complaints he then brought before this Court. It is not obvious that he failed to comply with a particular formal requirement for lodging his constitutional complaint. The Court is not in a position in the present case to establish the reason why the applicant’s constitutional complaint was considered inadmissible (compare, inter alia, Luig v. Germany (dec.), no. 28782/04, 25 September 2007; Granos Organicos Nacionales S.A. v. Germany (dec.), no. 19508/07, 12 October 2010). Therefore the applicant has to be regarded as having exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 40. In conclusion, the Court rejects the Government’s objections as to admissibility. It further notes that the complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The applicant 41. The applicant alleged that his statements, according to which unlawful abortions had been performed which, however, had not been subject to criminal liability, constituted true statements of fact and formed part of a controversial debate on the laws governing abortion. Therefore, his right to express freely his opinion on abortion and to name those performing it had to outweigh the doctors’ personality rights. 42. According to the applicant, he had not singled out the two doctors: neither by distributing the leaflets nor by mentioning the doctors’ names and the day clinic’s address on the webpage had he created a “pillory effect”. The applicant pointed out that he had not listed only those two doctors on the webpage, but also many others performing abortions in line with the relevant German laws.