### Unfulfilled Accessibility Requirements
#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).
2. **Accessibility and Foreseeability**: The Court reiterates that 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
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 (
10_43,
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 (
78_115,
78_116,
78_117,
112_84,
112_85,
121_34,
121_35,
121_36,
149_70,
149_71,
196_72).
3. **Absence of Law**: In some cases, the Government failed to indicate the grounds on which interference was justified, and there was no law regulating the interference (
42_144,
112_84,
112_85,
121_34,
121_35,
121_36,
149_70,
149_71,
196_72).
4. **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).
5. **Lack of Specific Authority in Decision-Making**: 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).
6. **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).
7. **Vague Legislation**: Serious concerns were raised about the foreseeability and precision of the legislation governing public assemblies, leading to the possibility of arbitrary bans or dispersals. This was highlighted in the Gafgaz Mammadov case and applied to similar cases (
312_51,
348_37,
368_115).
8. **Lack of Evidence and Procedural Fairness**: In cases where there was no video or other evidence confirming the police officers’ account and the content of the administrative-arrest and administrative-detention reports, the Court found issues with accessibility. The lack of clear and accessible evidence can undermine the fairness of the proceedings and the accessibility of the law (
594_95).
9. **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).
#Cases of Inaccessibility
1. **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).
2. **Dismissal Without Examination**: The Police Department dismissed the applicant’s notification without examining it on the merits, which was considered a failure 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).
4. **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).