NIX v. GERMANY DECISION 5 14. The prosecution authorities also charged the applicant with libel on account of his statement in his blog post of 13 May 2014 in which he had called the staff member of the employment office “slimy staff member” (see paragraph 9 above). The proceedings concerning the charge of libel were later discontinued by the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 25 below). 15. On 10 November 2014 the applicant published a blog post about the indictment, in which he reproduced a number of photographs showing, inter alia, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring in uniform as well as several flags showing the swastika. The Court does not have any information as to whether any criminal proceedings were instituted in relation to that blog post. 16. On 7 January 2015 the Munich District Court convicted the applicant of the offences of libel and using symbols of unconstitutional organisations (Article 86a § 1 no. 1 and Article 86 § 2 of the Criminal Code – see paragraph 29 below) because he had displayed, in his blog post of 23 March 2014, a picture of former SS chief Heinrich Himmler in SS uniform, with the badge of the Nazi party (including a swastika) on his front pocket, and wearing a swastika armband. It sentenced him to separate sentences (Einzelstrafen) of four months’ imprisonment for using symbols for unconstitutional organisations and 70 day-fines of 15 euros (EUR) each for libel, resulting in a cumulative sentence (Gesamtstrafe) of five months’ imprisonment. The sentence was suspended. 17. On 6 May 2015 the Munich Regional Court rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant against that judgment in so far as it related to his conviction of the offences of libel and – by displaying a picture of Himmler in SS uniform wearing a swastika armband in his blog post – of using symbols of unconstitutional organisations. However, it reduced the separate sentence for using symbols of unconstitutional organisations to 120 day-fines of EUR 10 each and that for libel to 40 day-fines of EUR 10 each, and the cumulative sentence to 140 day-fines of EUR 10 each. It considered that the applicant, who had relied on his right to freedom of expression and had claimed to have contributed to a debate of public interest, could not rely on Article 86 § 3 of the Criminal Code, as the publication (that is to say his blog post) had not served any of the purposes listed there (see paragraph 29 below). In the text of his blog post, which had started below the picture and quotation, he had neither dealt with Himmler nor with the quoted statement. Rather, the text had been addressed to the staff member of the employment office handling the file of the applicant’s daughter and had concerned the dealings between that staff member and the daughter. The Regional Court saw no connection between the text written by the applicant on the one hand and Himmler, the Third Reich or its education policies on the other hand. The applicant had not explained any such parallel either. Nor had he distanced himself from the picture of Himmler with the swastika and from the quoted statement. It was not