5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Weinheim. He is a campaigner against abortion and operates an anti-abortion website (babycaust.de). At the time of the proceedings outlined below, the website included, among other things, the following content.
6.  On the starting page a picture of graves was shown and the text underneath read “then: Holocaust”. Upon clicking on the picture, the user was directed to a page titled: “Abortion – the new Holocaust?” on which the Holocaust was compared to abortions. On the left margin of the starting page, there were several links, of which one was called “Life or death?”. Upon clicking on it, the user was directed to a page with the headline “Prayer requests for Germany”. From that page, the reader was directed to a location-based alphabetical list mentioning the names and practice addresses of doctors who performed abortions in Germany, and to a request for prayers for those doctors.
At the very bottom of the same page, under the highlighted text “German contemporary history in brief”, a sentence read:
“Perverted doctors murder unborn children at the request of the mothers” (Pervertierte Ärzte ermorden im Auftrag der Mütter die ungeborenen Kinder)
On the same page, clicking on the button “close page” forwarded the user to a page where it was stated:
“Pray, if possible regularly, for the doctors ... who personally undertake the AGGRAVATED MURDER of abortion killing” (Beten Sie – wenn möglich regelmäßig – für die Mediziner ..., welche den MORD der Abtreibungstötung selbst vornehmen ...) (Emphasis in original).
Somewhat farther down on the same page, it was stated that counselling centres that issued certifications:
“... are enabling and facilitating the unpunished aggravated murder of children in their mother’s womb.” (... ermöglichen und begünstigen einen straffreien Kindermord im Mutterschoβ.)
7.  One of the doctors listed on the applicant’s website, Dr Q., sought a civil injunction ordering the applicant to remove his name and address from the website.
8.  On 23 May 2006 the Mannheim Regional Court rejected Dr Q.’s application on the grounds that it was a fact that Dr Q. performed abortions and that the remainder of the website’s content was covered by the applicant’s freedom of expression. It observed, in particular, that the present case was not comparable to similar cases which had concerned an interference with personality rights by the distribution of personalised leaflets. The publishing of a doctor’s name on a list of abortion performing doctors had no comparable “pillory effect”.
9.  Subsequently Dr Q. appealed and – during the appeal proceedings –
modified his application, seeking a civil injunction ordering the applicant to desist from labelling abortions, such as those performed by Dr Q., “aggravated murder”.
10.  On 28 February 2007 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal granted the sought injunction. The court held that the applicant’s website led it to be understood that abortions performed by Dr Q. constituted “aggravated murder”. While the term “aggravated murder” did not have to be understood in a merely legal sense but could also be understood as a moral judgment, the overall presentation of the website at the very least did not exclude a reading that Dr Q. had perpetrated the criminal offence of aggravated murder. Even though the applicant had pointed out that abortions were exempt from punishment, he had not referred to section 218a of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 14 below), which exempted abortions as performed by Dr Q., from criminal liability. In addition, the applicant had emphasised the term “aggravated murder” in the relevant parts of the website and had compared abortions with the Holocaust. In sum, the statements of the website could be understood as a personalised accusation against Dr Q. of perpetrating aggravated murder.
11.  On 29 May 2007 the Federal Court of Justice refused a request by the applicant for legal aid on the grounds that the applicant’s intended appeal on points of law lacked sufficient prospect of success.
12.  On 2 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit a complaint by the applicant for adjudication for being inadmissible, without providing reasons (no. 1 BvR 1663/07).