8 NIX v. GERMANY DECISION of the applicant. At the same time, at the request of the prosecution authorities, the court discontinued the proceedings in so far as they related to libel (see paragraphs 9, 14 and 24 above). 26. On 2 September 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, relying on his right to freedom of expression. He referred to the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008), in which the Court had found that the applicant’s criminal conviction for wearing a red star at a lawfully organised, peaceful demonstration by a registered political party, with no known intention of defying the rule of law, and without requiring any proof that the display of the red star amounted to totalitarian propaganda, constituted a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The approach of the German courts fell short of the requirements provided by the Court’s case-law. He also emphasised that it was not only journalists who enjoyed protection under that Article, but that there was a strong public interest in enabling small groups and individuals and groups outside the mainstream to contribute to public debate on matters of general public interest and that a certain degree of exaggeration had to be tolerated (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2005-II), in particular where the matter concerned racism (Haguenauer v. France, no. 34050/05, § 49, 22 April 2010), as was the case with his blog post. 27. The Regional Court and the Court of Appeal had not sufficiently taken all circumstances of the blog post into account. From the content of the blog post itself and from the overall context – which included several blog posts concerning the applicant’s dealings with the employment office, the unlawfulness of the office’s request that his daughter submit her most recent school report and his criticism of neo-liberal economics and institutional racism – it was evident that his intention had been to protest against the policies of the employment office and to contribute to a debate of public interest, and that he rejected Nazi ideology. The courts had failed to consider different interpretations of the blog post and had not examined his right to freedom of expression as protected by Article 5 of the Basic Law and Article 10 of the Convention. 28. On 12 December 2015 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the constitutional complaint (no. 1 BvR 2141/15) for examination. It held that the complaint was inadmissible, but did not indicate the reason for this. The decision was served on the applicant on 20 January 2016. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 1. The Criminal Code 29. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, in so far as relevant, provide as follows: