5.  The first applicant organisation is the Vienna Chamber of Medical Doctors (Ärztekammer für Wien). The Chamber represents all medical practitioners in Vienna and also has its own website. The second applicant was the Chamber’s president at the time of the events. 6.  On 18 January 2007 the second applicant published a letter on the first applicant organisation’s website, which was addressed to all members of the Chamber in Vienna and was also sent out to all of them via e-mail. The letter was titled “Locust funds want to take over medical practices” (“Heuschreckenfonds wollen Ordinationen übernehmen”). The second applicant went on to state that he had been forced to write to his colleagues for a serious reason, namely, because it had been reported in the media that the F. company planned to go into “the radiology business”. He added that share-bidding companies planned to offer medical services – initially in the area of radiology, but soon enough in other areas of the profession as well ‑ and that doctors risked becoming mere employees of such “locust” companies. If they would not act according to the companies’ wishes, they would be dismissed. The second applicant then explained the assumed legal and organisational basis of such a plan: radiology services which were currently being provided by medical practices could, in future, also be offered by limited companies. Shares of those companies could then be bought by the F. company, and the “locusts” would reach their goal, namely control of the medical profession. Giving an example of a risky development, the second applicant stated that in the last 20 years, colleagues had founded laboratories which had reciprocal agreements with certain health insurance boards. Today, almost all of those laboratories were owned by the F. group, which, in turn, was owned by insurance companies, investment funds and foundations, and which employed a large number of doctors. The second applicant ended his letter by stating that he could guarantee one thing: that the doctors’ professional representative body would make use of all legal and political means available to stop such a disastrous development from going ahead, to prevent that the quality of medical treatment being determined by “managers and controllers” and to ensure, inter alia, that existing medical practices were protected from the competition from “international locust funds” (“internationale Heuschreckenfonds”). 7.  On 24 January 2007 the F. company lodged an action against the two applicants and an application for an injunction with the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht Wien). The applicants contested the application. 8.  On 16 February 2007 the Vienna Commercial Court issued an injunction prohibiting the applicants (each of them individually) from repeating the statement that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties, in particular medical professionals. The injunction prevented the applicants from referring to the F. company as a “locust”, “locust company” or “locust fund”. The applicants were further prohibited from stating that the provision of services by the F. company, particularly services in the area of radiology, was a disastrous development. The court found that there was a competitive relationship between the F. company and the applicants, and found the statements made by the applicants to be defamatory under Article 1330 of the Civil Code and unethical under the Unfair Competition Act (Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb). 9.  The applicants appealed against the injunction. On 30 October 2007 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Wien) partly granted the appeal, and prohibited the applicants from alleging that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties and medical practitioners, and from calling it, inter alia, a “locust company”. However, it dismissed the F. company’s application to prohibit the applicants from calling its provision of services a “disastrous” development. The Court of Appeal found that the first applicant organisation had locus standi in the injunction proceedings. The Chamber of Medical Doctors held official authority status in relation to certain areas of its work (Bereich der Hoheitsverwaltung), in addition to representing the interests of its members; it was therefore considered a legal entity under the Official Liability Act (Amtshaftungsgesetz). However, when acting as a special interest group, it represented its members’ interests from a mainly economic perspective, rather than acting in its capacity as an official authority. According to the Court of Appeal, the letter in issue pursued the interests of the Chamber’s members, outside the Chamber’s official sphere of activity. 10.  The Court of Appeal further established, referring inter alia to Wikipedia, that the term “locust company“ (“Heuschreckenunternehmen“) was introduced into the political discussion in German speaking countries in 2005 by Mr Franz Müntefering, a German politician, and is ever since used in political debates as a pejorative term for private-equity companies or other forms of capital funds with short-term or exaggerated return expectations – like hedge funds or „vulture“ funds, which also had negative connotations. The domestic court found that there was a need to balance the interests involved in the present debate, reiterating that extreme opinions were only unlawful if they were excessive. As a result of that balancing exercise, the Court of Appeal found that the “locust” statement had to be considered a lawful criticism in the context of a public debate, and that the F. company could therefore not base its claim on Article 1330 of the Civil Code. However, the Court of Appeal classified the applicants’ actions as competitive in nature. Statements of fact made in violation of the Unfair Competition Act could not be justified by the right to freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal found that Austrian law provided wide‑ranging protection for commercial and economic interests. Those who published an opinion in an economically competitive context were obliged to exercise a higher level of diligence with regard to the facts and bases of their allegations than those who acted in the non-competitive context of a public debate of general interest. Therefore, the Court of Appeal upheld the injunction decision with regard to the statements about the “locust company”. 11.  However, as regards the further statement, namely that provision of certain services by the F. company was a “disastrous development”, the Court of Appeal found that, read in context, the statement indicated a general assessment and did not refer to a particular service of the F. company. It was therefore to be considered a personal opinion, and thus a value judgment that was not defamatory under Article 1330 of the Civil Code. It also did not fall under section 7 of the Unfair Competition Act. 12.  The applicants lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). On 22 January 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the extraordinary appeal. It acknowledged the applicants’ argument that where a competitor, even for economic purposes, took part in a debate of public interest, freedom of expression had to hold more weight in the balancing test. However, the Supreme Court observed that the applicants had made their statement in the clearly economic context of competition between medical practitioners and companies which provided the same services. The applicants could have warned their members of the possible risks of cooperating with companies without overstepping the margin of acceptable criticism. However, the applicants had exceeded that limit and stated that the F. company was a “locust”. That statement was one of fact, and the applicants had not provided evidence of a factual basis for their allegations, and had therefore exceeded the permissible limitations of freedom of expression. 13.  On 7 July 2008 the Commercial Court gave its judgment in the substantive proceedings and ordered the applicants to refrain from: repeating the statement that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties, in particular medical practitioners and patients; and stating that the F. company was a “locust company”, a “locust fund” or a “locust”. It further ordered the applicants to publish and display the operative part of the judgment on the first applicant organisation’s website for thirty days, and to publish it in the first applicant organisation’s print newsletter. 14.  The Commercial Court made substantial reference to the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in the interim injunction proceedings. It followed the previous finding that the relevant statements did not constitute defamation pursuant to Article 1330 of the Civil Code. Examining the statements in relation to the provisions of the Unfair Competition Act, the Commercial Court found that the letter had been written by the Chamber of Medical Doctors in a commercial and not a political context. It had also had the advancement of independent medical practices as an objective, and had contained a warning regarding capital ventures which allegedly threatened doctors’ independence. The Commercial Court found the relevant comparisons with “locusts” to be statements of fact regarding both the F. company and its conduct in relation to third parties, doctors and patients. The statements were also likely to damage the F. company’s commercial interests, and had not been proved to be true. 15.  The used language could also not be justified with a reference to the right to freedom of expression as the statement was uttered within the framework of a commercial competitive relationship. With reference to the Court’s case-law allowing for a wider margin of appreciation under Article 10 of the Convention with regard to commercial language, the Commercial Court observed that a competitor was required to be more diligent in the context of commercial communication among competitors. The term “locust” was almost exclusively loaded with negative meaning, which led to the unethical general vilification of a competitor. The applicants were therefore prohibited from using that statement in relation to the F. company, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Act. 16.  On 19 September 2008 the applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment. On 12 December 2008 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded. It referred to the extensive reasoning given in the interim injunction proceedings and added that, according to the case-law of the Supreme Court, the test used to verify whether a statement was covered by the right to freedom of expression required the assessment of whether a factual basis for such a statement existed; if a competitor participated in a public debate of general interest, freedom of expression had more weight with regard to the assessment of the statement than in the context of purely commercial communication. The greater the public interest in being properly informed and the less the statement related to commercial interests, the more the statement would be protected by Article 10 of the Convention. In the present case, there was no doubt that there was an ongoing public debate; however, the commercial interests of the applicants had very much been in the foreground of the communicated statement itself. 17.  The applicants lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law against that judgment, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on 14 July 2009. The Supreme Court found that the applicants had not only called the F. company a “locust”, but had also reproached this company for negative conduct, such as dominating doctors, dismissing doctors who did not act in accordance with company wishes, and focusing on economic factors rather than the welfare of patients (“Herrschaft über den ärztlichen Berufstand, Kündigung nicht “spurender” Ärzte, Orientierung an ökonomischen Erwägungen und damit nicht am Wohl der Patienten”). Therefore, the expression used had turned into a statement of fact, giving the reader the impression that the F. company had already demonstrated unethical conduct which threatened the interests of doctors and patients. In view of the specific circumstances of the case, the prohibition ruled upon by the lower courts was justified. Even though the applicants had taken part in a debate of general public interest, an untrue and damaging statement of fact was not protected by freedom of expression. Furthermore, the issuing of warnings concerning the potential risks of the provision of medical services by companies was not, as such, prohibited by the decisions of the Austrian courts; the applicants had only been required to refrain from making untrue statements of fact in respect of their competitors. 18.  The decision of the Supreme Court was served on the applicants’ counsel on 27 August 2009.