### Accessibility and Foreseeability in Legal Contexts
#General Principles
1. **Quality of Law**: The expressions “prescribed by law” and “in accordance with the law” in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention require that the impugned measure should have a basis in domestic law. The law must be accessible to those concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences of their actions. The law must also be clear enough to give individuals an adequate indication of the circumstances and conditions under which public authorities are entitled to interfere with their rights (
235_39,
357_22,
360_30,
380_38).
2. **Accessibility and Foreseeability**: For a law to be considered accessible, it must be published and available in a manner that allows individuals to understand the legal constraints on their actions. Additionally, the law must be sufficiently clear to enable individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions (
235_39,
235_41,
357_22,
360_30,
380_38).
#Applications
1. **Foreseeability and Legal Basis**:
- The Court examined whether individuals could reasonably foresee that their actions would attract legal consequences (
12_86,
12_87,
118_106,
118_107,
119_30,
121_33,
121_34,
121_35,
121_36,
126_37,
126_38,
130_26,
131_216,
143_60,
158_38,
180_123,
180_124,
181_76,
195_28,
195_29).
- In cases where the legal basis for the interference was clear and the individuals were aware of the legal constraints, the Court found the accessibility requirement to be satisfied (
60_106,
60_107,
118_106,
118_107,
119_30,
121_33,
121_34,
121_35,
121_36,
126_37,
126_38,
130_26,
131_216,
143_60,
158_38,
180_123,
180_124,
181_76,
195_28,
195_29).
2. **Criminal Code and Administrative Offences**: The Court found that the interference had a basis in domestic law, such as the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offences, and was thus “prescribed by law” with sufficient foreseeability (
266_30,
287_53).
3. **Assembly Act in Hungary**: The Court found that the ban on an assembly was based on section 8(1) of the Assembly Act, which was considered to be prescribed by law, indicating that the legal provision was accessible and clear enough for individuals to understand the constraints on their freedom of assembly (
429_18).
4. **Article 166 of the CAO**: In a case involving the use of profane language during a demonstration, the Court noted that the interference was clearly prescribed by law. The administrative penalty was based on Article 166 of the CAO, which explicitly prohibited the use of offensive language in public. The applicants could have reasonably foreseen that their conduct would entail administrative liability under this provision, thus meeting the quality-of-law requirement under the Convention (
432_39).
5. **Prosecution and Criminal Conviction**: The Court found that the applicant’s prosecution and criminal conviction for acts committed during the dispersal of a demonstration were provided for by law. The legal provisions were clear and pursued legitimate aims, thus satisfying the accessibility requirement (
442_26).
6. **Clear Legal Provisions**: The Court found that the interference was "prescribed by law" when it was based on clear legal provisions, such as Article 173 of the CAO. This provision was deemed accessible and allowed individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions (
598_54).
7. **Criminal Code Provisions**: 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).
#Unfulfilled Accessibility Requirements
1. **Legal Provisions Not Meeting Quality of Law Requirements**: In one case, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly was based on legal provisions that did not meet the Convention’s "quality of law" requirements. This indicates that the provisions were not sufficiently accessible or clear, leading to arbitrary interference (
466_50).
2. **Lack of Clear Legal Basis**: In some instances, the Court found that the 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).
#Published Laws and Legal Provisions
1. **Law no. 60/1991 on Public Gatherings**: The relevant provisions of this law were cited in a case, suggesting that the law was accessible and provided a clear legal basis for regulating public gatherings (
414_84,
414_85).
#Issues Undermining Accessibility
1. **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. The Court emphasized the need for detailed reasoning to ensure that individuals understand the legal basis for decisions affecting their rights (
594_96).