### Accessibility and Quality of Law

#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 legal basis in domestic law and refer to the quality of the law in question. The law should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects. It must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences of a given action. Absolute precision is unattainable, especially in fields where societal views change. The role of national courts is to clarify any remaining interpretational doubts (235_39, 357_22, 360_30, 380_38).

2. **Foreseeability and Precision**: The law must be sufficiently clear to give individuals an adequate indication of the circumstances and conditions under which public authorities are entitled to interfere with their rights. This includes the need for the law to be formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions (235_39, 235_41, 357_22, 360_30, 380_38).

3. **Safeguards Against Arbitrary Interference**: The notion of “quality of the law” requires that the law be compatible with the rule of law, implying adequate safeguards in domestic law against arbitrary interferences by public authorities (380_38).

4. **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).

#Applications

**Fulfilled Accessibility Requirements:**

1. **Statutory Ban on Public Events Near Court Buildings**: The applicant’s conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences for holding a demonstration near the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Tatarstan was based on a statutory ban. However, the Court found such a general ban to be too broadly drawn and incompatible with Article 11 § 2 (203_45).

2. **Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act**: The interference in the case had a legal basis in Sections 22 and 24 of the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act, and was thus “prescribed by law” (207_25).

3. **Assembly Act**: The interference was prescribed by law under section 8(1) of the Assembly Act, which pursued legitimate aims of public safety and the rights and freedoms of others (218_18, 429_18).

4. **Code of Administrative Offences**: The fine imposed on the applicant under Article 185-1 of the CAO for violations of the procedure for organizing and holding demonstrations was based on accessible domestic law (247_38).

5. **Criminal Code**: The interference had a legal basis in national law, specifically section 260(1) of the Criminal Code, and was thus “prescribed by law” with sufficient foreseeability (266_30, 615_21).

6. **Published Laws**: The provisions of Laws nos. 5237, 3713, and 2911 were accessible, and the decision of 4 March 2008, although not published in the Official Gazette, was available on the Internet (256_107).

7. **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).

8. **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).

**Unfulfilled Accessibility Requirements:**

1. **General Ban on Public Events**: The Court found that a general ban on holding public events near court buildings was too broadly drawn and incompatible with Article 11 § 2 (203_45).

2. **Lack of Specific Authority**: In some cases, the 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. **Quality of Law**: The Court found that in some cases, the legal provisions did not meet the Convention’s “quality of law” requirements, leading to unlawful interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly (293_9, 466_50).

4. **Cases of Inaccessibility**:
- **Absence of Effective Remedy**: The Court found a violation of Article 13 owing to the absence of an effective domestic remedy, as the judicial remedy available to the organizers of public events was of a post-hoc character and could not provide adequate redress (227_13).
- **Failure to Meet Quality of Law Requirements**: The Court found that in some cases, the legal provisions did not meet the Convention’s “quality of law” requirements, leading to unlawful interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly (293_9, 466_50).

#Citations

- The law must be sufficiently clear in its terms to give individuals an adequate indication of the circumstances in which public authorities are entitled to interfere with their rights (58_104, 58_105, 58_106, 58_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).

- The Court has consistently found violations where laws governing public assemblies lacked clarity and precision, leading to arbitrary interferences with the right to freedom of assembly (10_43, 10_44, 10_45, 112_84, 112_85, 121_34, 121_35, 121_36, 149_70, 149_71, 196_72).