2 NIX v. GERMANY DECISION applicant concerning the applicant’s daughter, who is of German-Nepalese origin. In early March 2014, the employment office sent a letter with the heading “Your professional development from September 2014 onwards” to the applicant’s daughter. The employment office requested her, as an eighteen-year-old who was scheduled to complete her schooling in the summer of 2015 at the earliest, to complete a questionnaire to indicate whether she intended to continue schooling beyond September 2014, or to commence vocational training or tertiary studies. She was also asked to submit a copy of her latest school report. Moreover, the letter stated that, should the applicant’s daughter intend to pursue vocational training, the staff member would ensure her registration at the employment office. In that case he asked her to contact him, as the registration was very important for the transmission of vacant positions for vocational training. 4. The applicant has a blog, on which he writes about certain matters concerning economics, politics and society. Between 20 March 2014 and 13 May 2014, he published six posts about the interaction between the employment office and his daughter. 5. In his first post on the matter, entitled “[Name of the staff member] of the employment office, expert in educational remote diagnosis” and published on 20 March 2014, the applicant reproduced an e-mail exchange he had with the staff member of the employment office on 18 March 2014. In that exchange, the applicant had inquired about the purpose of the employment office’s request contained in the above-mentioned letter, to which the staff member had responded that he was, in line with pertinent legislation, the contact person for the applicant’s daughter in relation to her transition from schooling to vocational training or tertiary studies. He further stated that, in order to provide customised counselling, he needed information about the current state of affairs, in particular whether she was on track to finish school that summer as intended or whether the employment office should finance remedial lessons. The applicant stated that he would provide his answers within a few days. 6. In his second post, published on 23 March 2014 at 1.52 am, the applicant addressed the staff member of the employment office and reiterated that he, as the father who had custody for his daughter, would never allow the employment office to intervene in the decision-making concerning her professional development. The background to the staff member’s letter and email was that the employment office intended to push his daughter, in a racist and discriminatory manner, into becoming part of the cheap labour force (“Das Jobcenter will in rassistischer und diskriminierender Weise meine Tochter in einen Billiglohnjob verfrachten”). The applicant stated that he was going to address the matter in a number of blog posts. A long post would concern legal aspects and, inter alia, contain references to judgments and statements of the Federal Constitutional Court. He would also make the staff member of the