553_59 interference 59. The Court notes that the applicants intended to hold public events at specific locations and considered the alternative sites proposed by the authorities as being ill-suited to the purposes of the events. It is undisputed by the parties that the authorities’ refusals to approve the locations for the public events in question amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly. Such an interference will constitute a breach of Article 11 unless it was “prescribed by law”, pursued one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2, and was “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims.