NIX v. GERMANY DECISION 17 rather than promoting them. At no point is it mentioned that the applicant’s daughter is of foreign origin and discriminated against and that the applicant was receiving social welfare benefits (see paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 above). Nor was there any parallel drawn or explanation given why the request by the staff member of the employment office (see paragraph 3 above) could be compared to what had happened during the Nazi regime. Not a single phrase of the text referred to racism or discrimination. The Court thus considers that the domestic courts can neither be reproached for finding that there was no connection between the text and the policies which the Nazi symbols stood for, nor for concluding that the applicant had used the picture as an “eye-catching device” (see paragraphs 17 and 25 above). 54. The Court notes that this gratuitous use of symbols was exactly what the provision sanctioning the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations was intended to prevent, as it was meant to pre-empt anyone becoming used to certain symbols by banning them from all means of communication (the so-called “communicative taboo” – see paragraph 31 above). The case-law of the domestic court is clear in so far as the critical use of Nazi symbols is not sufficient to exempt a person from criminal liability for such use (see paragraph 32 above). Rather, a clear and obvious opposition to Nazi ideology is required (ibid.). Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court sees no reason to depart from the assessment of the domestic courts that the applicant did not clearly and obviously reject Nazi ideology in his blog post (see paragraphs 17 and 25 above). 55. While the sentence of 120 day-fines was not negligible, the Court notes that the sentence had been reduced from a prison sentence to a fine in course of the proceedings (see paragraphs 16-17 above) and that the applicant had been convicted of a similar offence only a few weeks before he published the blog post at issue. 56. Reiterating that the historical experience of Germany is a weighty factor to be taken into account when determining, when it comes to recourse to symbols such as those at issue in the present case, whether there exists a pressing social need for interfering with an applicant’s right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, the Court finds, in light of all the circumstances of the case, that the domestic authorities adduced relevant and sufficient reasons and did not overstep their margin of appreciation. The interference was therefore proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and was thus “necessary in a democratic society”. 57. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.