4 NIX v. GERMANY DECISION every effort to make it difficult for adolescents to continue their education. The applicant ended by stating that he would deal in a future blog post with another sentence in the above-mentioned email from the employment office offering remedial lessons, “if required”. Parts of the post were written in vulgar and offensive language. 9. On 25 March 2014 the applicant wrote another post entitled “Does [name of the staff member] offer personalised remedial lessons for my daughter?”, in which he stated, inter alia, that he had the impression that the staff member of the employment office was acting on the basis of racial profiling and that a person’s origin was associated with doubts as to his or her prospects of success, which he found shameful. He wrote two more posts on 27 March 2014 and on 13 May 2014, in the latter referring to the staff member as “slimy staff member” (“schleimender Mitarbeiter”). 10. While all six posts have in common that they start with different pictures under the respective heading, only the third post featured Nazi symbols (see paragraph 7 above). None of the blog posts contained a clearly visible link to the other five posts. The applicant did not state in any of the six posts that his daughter was of German-Nepalese origin and that he was receiving social welfare benefits. 11. Shortly before the events in question, various German media reported on complaints made by parents who received social welfare benefits that their children were unduly pushed towards vocational training by the employment offices and that children with a migrant background were discriminated against in school and by employment offices. 12. In a letter of 17 December 2014 the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information informed the applicant’s daughter that the employment office’s request regarding the submission of her latest school report had been unlawful, given that her father had submitted to the employment office a certificate of her enrolment in the school, that the completion of her schooling was not imminent and that the employment office had not substantiated any suspicion that she would not complete her schooling. 2. The proceedings at issue 13. On 21 October 2014 the Munich prosecution authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, charging him with the offence of using symbols of unconstitutional organisations in his third blog post of 23 March 2014 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). The indictment also contained the information that the Munich District Court convicted the applicant, on 10 February 2014, of, inter alia, using symbols of unconstitutional organisations for having published a picture of Angela Merkel in Nazi uniform with a swastika armband and a painted Hitler-moustache. That conviction had not yet become final at the time of the indictment.