NIX v. GERMANY DECISION 3 employment office and the employment office as a whole aware of the highly interesting statements contained in report CRI(2014)2 of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) on Germany. ECRI’s general policy recommendation no. 7 on national legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination adopted on 13 December 2002 should not be forgotten either. Furthermore, the applicant was going to contact different institutions, both domestic and international, with regard to this matter and publish everything on his blog. He stated that his next post would address the sentence “[F]or customised counselling I need information about the current state of affairs ([that is to say] a school report)” contained in the email of the staff member of the unemployment office. 7. At 7.16 am that same day, the applicant posted a statement, more than a page in length. Under the heading “[Name of the staff member] offers ‘customised’ integration into the low-wage [economy]” he placed a picture of the former SS chief Heinrich Himmler, showing him in SS uniform, with the badge of the Nazi party (including a swastika) on his front pocket, and wearing a swastika armband. The diameter of the swastika on the armband, as shown on the picture, was 0.7 centimetres. Next to the picture the applicant posted a quote of Himmler concerning the schooling of children in Eastern Europe during the occupation by Nazi Germany to the effect that parents who wanted to offer their children good education had to submit a request to the SS and the police leadership. The applicant indicated the sources for both the quotation and the picture. 8. Below the picture and quotation, the applicant addressed the staff member of the employment office by name and stated that he would, in the blog post in question, proceed to discuss the following sentence from an email sent by the latter to the applicant: “[F]or customised counselling I need information about the current state of affairs – ([that is to say] a school report)”. The applicant stated that the staff member had informed him that he was acting in line with his counselling mandate under the Social Security Code. To him, the staff member concerned and the employment office as a whole did not appear to attach much importance – if any – to the “counselling mandate”. He stated that he had contacted the employment office in November 2013 and February 2014 to ask for the reimbursement of the costs in respect of his daughter commuting to school, without receiving a reply. Nobody from the employment office had ever taken an interest in his daughter, so the offer of “customised counselling” did not appear genuine. Prior to the entry into force of the latest educational policy, his daughter had been able to eat at school for free, but that support had been discontinued. The staff member of the employment office must have had telepathic skills if he was able to design “customised” advice for his daughter by looking at her school report without knowing anything about her interests, strengths and weaknesses. The employment office was making