### Practical Compliance and Procedural Requirements
1. **Authorities' Failure to Provide Valid Reasons**:
- Authorities' failure to provide valid reasons for rejecting an application to hold an assembly was found to be a breach of the law (
42_144,
163_25,
167_21,
168_21).
- The Court noted that further measures would be necessary to address general issues identified earlier, despite some clarifications provided by the Supreme Court. This indicates that the law must 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 (
553_60).
2. **Lack of Clear Legal Basis**:
- In Poland, the requirement to submit a traffic organization plan lacked a legal basis, leading to the conclusion that the interference was not prescribed by law (
42_144,
150_54,
150_55,
150_56,
150_57).
- 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).
3. **Court Hearings and Appeals**:
- Various snippets discuss the procedural aspects of court hearings and appeals, indicating issues with the accessibility and fairness of the legal process (
315_32,
315_35,
316_43,
316_50,
316_51,
349_44,
349_46,
349_47,
349_49,
351_95,
355_40,
367_68,
367_70,
368_45,
378_4,
378_29,
380_44).
Dismissal of Appeals Without Sufficient Explanation
1. **Insufficient Explanation by Appellate Courts**:
- 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 (
42_144,
150_54,
150_55,
150_56,
150_57).
- The Court emphasized the need for detailed reasoning to ensure that individuals understand the legal basis for decisions affecting their rights (
42_144,
150_54,
150_55,
150_56,
150_57).
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).
Applications
1. **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).