Security served in courts in the judiciary of the Land of Brandenburg ­ was possible based on the information disclosed by the authorities, without knowing the names of the individuals concerned (see also Georgian Young Lawyers' Association v. Georgia (dec.), no. 2703/12, §§ 32-33, 19 January 2021).

- Having regard to the fact that certain information on the subject matter of the applicant's information request is publicly available, was access to the requested information instrumental for the exercise of the applicant's right to freedom of expression (see, in particular, Georgian Young Lawyers' Association v. Georgia (dec.), no. 2703/12, §§ 29-33, 19 January 2021)?.

The Court concludes that the applicant has failed to show - both before the domestic courts and before this Court - that not allowing her to take handwritten notes during the oral hearings impaired the exercise of her freedom of expression, and in particular her right to receive and impart information, in a manner striking at the very substance of her Article 10 rights (compare Georgian Young Lawyers' Association, no. 2703/12, §§ 30-34, 19 January 2021; Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 75865/11, § 54, 3 March 2020).

There is nothing to indicate that a public debate on the matter - the fact that the Government concluded a contract with a US-based private law firm to provide legal services in connection with the appellate proceedings against Croatian Army generals before the ICTY and the amount of monthly fees they undertook to pay in return - was not possible based on the information which was already publicly available, without disclosing the actual agreement (compare Georgian Young Lawyers' Association v. Georgia (dec.), no. 2703/12, §§ 32-33, 19 January 2021 and Mikiashvili and Others v. Georgia (dec.), nos.