### Accessibility in Cases

#Unfulfilled Accessibility Requirements

1. **Vague Legal Provisions**:
- Provisions such as 'breach of ... discretion' in Article 106 of the Decree of 9 June 1972 and 'contra bonos mores' were criticized for being too vague (112_84, 112_85, 121_34, 121_35, 121_36, 149_70, 149_71, 196_72).

2. **Lack of Specific Authority**:
- Provisions like Article L. 2512-13 of the General Code of Territorial Authorities were found insufficiently detailed (112_84, 112_85, 121_34, 121_35, 121_36, 149_70, 149_71, 196_72).
- Authorities were not obliged by any legally binding time frame to give their final decisions before the planned date of the public event, leading to a lack of effective domestic remedy (227_13).

3. **Absence of Law**:
- The Government failed to indicate the grounds on which interference was justified, and there was no law regulating the interference (112_84, 112_85, 121_34, 121_35, 121_36, 149_70, 149_71, 196_72).

4. **Lack of Evidence and Procedural Fairness**:
- The absence of video or other evidence confirming the police officers’ account and the content of the administrative-arrest and administrative-detention reports undermined the fairness of the proceedings and the accessibility of the law (594_95).

5. **Dismissal of Appeals Without Sufficient Explanation**:
- The appellate court's failure to clearly state what important issues and evidence were insufficiently assessed by the lower court can undermine the accessibility of the law. Detailed reasoning is needed to ensure individuals understand the legal basis for decisions affecting their rights (594_96).

#Cases of Inaccessibility

1. **Lack of Clear Legal Basis**:
- In Armenia, the USSR Law of 28 October 1988 was no longer applicable, leading to the conclusion that the interference was not prescribed by law (42_144, 112_84, 112_85, 121_34, 121_35, 121_36, 149_70, 149_71, 196_72).
- Legal provisions did not meet the Convention’s "quality of law" requirements, leading to the conclusion that the interference was not prescribed by law. This highlights the importance of having clear and accessible legal provisions to avoid arbitrary interference with the right to freedom of assembly (466_50).

2. **Dismissal Without Examination**:
- The Police Department dismissed the applicant’s notification without examining it on the merits, failing to meet accessibility requirements (357_27).

3. **Lack of Legal Basis**:
- The restriction of the applicant’s right to hold an assembly was not based on legal provisions that met the Convention requirements of quality of the law (360_38).

#Quality of Law

1. **Legal Provisions Not Meeting Quality of Law Requirements**:
- In cases where the legal provisions did not meet the Convention’s "quality of law" requirements, the Court found the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly to be unlawful (78_115, 78_116, 78_117, 293_9, 466_50).

#Criminal Code Provisions

1. **Meeting Accessibility Requirements**:
- The Criminal Code provision cited in snippet 615_21 is an example of a law that meets the accessibility requirement. The provision clearly states the penalties for preventing the lawful exercise of freedom to assemble or demonstrate, or for seriously disturbing the proceedings of a lawful assembly or demonstration. The penalties are specified based on the nature of the acts (violence or illegal means), making it sufficiently clear for individuals to understand the legal consequences of their actions (615_21).