NIX v. GERMANY DECISION 7 requirements in so far as the remainder of his submission was concerned (see paragraphs 34-36 below). While it was possible to provide the reasoning of an appeal on points of law by having it recorded at the court’s registry, the judicial officer (Rechtspfleger) had the function of informing and examining the submission so as to avoid the Court of Appeal having to examine ill-founded or incomplete submissions (see paragraph 36 below). In the present case, the applicant’s submission on 22 June 2015 was such that the judicial officer merely wrote it down, as evidenced by the judicial officer’s note that it was not possible, in the light of the length of the submission (twenty-one pages), the many citations and the shortage of time available (two hours), to critically review the submission. The applicant’s submission regarding the grounds for his appeal on points of law had thus not been made in compliance with the respective formal requirements (see paragraph 36 below). 22. The prosecution authorities argued that the Regional Court’s judgment had, in any event, not disclosed any errors. The blog post at issue could not be compared to media content, which was meant to serve a civil education purpose and reported on current or historical events or similar purposes, thus falling under Article 86 § 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 29 below). The Regional Court had thoroughly and correctly reasoned why the applicant could not rely on that provision. They asked that the applicant’s appeal on points of law be dismissed as ill-founded. 23. In his reply of 19 July 2015 the applicant submitted that he had, on 30 May 2015, requested that counsel be appointed to him for his appeal on points of law and that this request had been refused on 3 June 2015 because, inter alia, he had been able to lodge his appeal on points of law by making an oral statement before the Regional Court’s Registry in order to have it recorded. In substance, he mainly repeated his earlier submissions. 24. On 28 July 2015 the prosecution authorities requested the Court of Appeal to discontinue the proceedings in so far as they related to libel because the sentence for that offence was insignificant compared to that for the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations. 25. On 4 August 2015 the Munich Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law in so far as it related to his conviction for using symbols of unconstitutional organisations and confirmed the separate sentence of 120 day-fines of EUR 10 each set by the Regional Court in this regard (see paragraph 17 above). Endorsing the reasoning of the Regional Court and referring to the submission of the prosecution authorities of 8 July 2015, it added that the applicability of Article 86a § 1 of the Criminal Code could only be restricted, beyond the scenarios covered by Article 86 § 3 of the Criminal Code, where it was obvious from the circumstances of the case taken as a whole that the person clearly distanced himself or herself from the objectives of Nazi ideology (see paragraph 32 below). The Regional Court had found that this was not the case in respect