This year's case dealt with restrictions on freedom of communication and assembly - both online and offline - due to a pandemic and was therefore particularly relevant this year. For example, the question was posed whether restricting freedom of expression on social media was proportionate if it could prevent false information that endangered public health. Juridicum’s team had to write two pleadings in advance, taking the position of both the applicant and respondent. These so-called "memorials" formed the basis for the (online) oral pleadings of the South-East European round. In preparation for this, the experienced media lawyer Mag. Dr. Eva Hammertinger, LL.M., gave an insight into her professional practice and was able to provide the participants with valuable procedural tips. The University of Vienna team negotiated successfully in formal English and won the first round of negotiations. In the second round, in which they had to take the position of the fictional state "Ized", the team lost to their opponents by a narrow margin. As a result, the team unfortunately missed out on a place in the global final in Oxford. In conclusion, it can be said that the team represented the University of Vienna professionally, learned a lot about the conflicting areas of public order and health and the freedom of communication, and gained a valuable insight into successful negotiation (in English).