### Foreseeability and Clear Legal Basis

#Clear Legal Basis and Precision

1. **Public Order and Assembly Laws**:
- The ban on public processions in London was covered by section 3(3) of the Public Order Act 1936, which was deemed sufficiently precise and thus "prescribed by law" (3_94, 3_95).
- The restriction on the applicants' freedom of assembly in Austria was based on laws that were not applied arbitrarily or unreasonably, making the legal consequences foreseeable (5_59, 5_89).
- Article 106 of the Decree of 9 June 1972, which required avocats to respect professional principles, was considered sufficiently precise to foresee the consequences of a breach (10_43, 10_44, 10_45).
- The applicability of section 240 of the German Criminal Code to sit-ins was clarified by the Federal Court of Justice, making the risk of punishment foreseeable (12_86, 12_87, 13_78, 13_87, 14_76, 16_79).
- The legal provisions on which the domestic courts based their judgments in Moldova were considered sufficiently precise to make the legal consequences foreseeable (83_133, 83_134, 83_135, 83_136, 83_137).
- Article 319 of the Penal Code in a case involving a conviction was found to be sufficiently precise, making the consequences foreseeable (76_200).
- The definition of the offense of breach of the peace in Scottish law was found to be sufficiently precise to provide reasonable foreseeability (108_65, 108_66).
- The applicants in Denmark were clearly informed that entering a defense area would violate the law, meeting the foreseeability requirement (115_149, 115_150, 115_151).
- The norm prescribing penalties for actions disturbing public order in Armenia was considered sufficiently precise (118_107).
- The applicant's conviction for violating public event rules in Russia was based on clear legal provisions, satisfying the foreseeability requirement (195_28, 195_29).
- The Court assumed that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims in the case of the applicant's conviction under Article 314 § 2 of the CC and section 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (337_23).
- It should have been foreseeable to participants in non-approved events that failure to comply with police orders could lead to prosecution (336_70).
- The administrative penalty imposed on the applicants for using profane language during a demonstration was foreseeable. The relevant provision explicitly prohibited the use of profane language in a public place, and the applicants acknowledged that their conduct would entail administrative liability under the law (432_39).
- The ban on public events near court buildings was based on section 8(1) of the Assembly Act, which was considered prescribed by law (429_18).

2. **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 and refer to the quality of the law in question. The law should be accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences of their actions. The law must be clear enough to give individuals an adequate indication of the circumstances and conditions under which public authorities can interfere with their rights (235_39).
- The Court emphasizes that laws must be sufficiently clear to allow individuals to foresee the legal consequences of their actions. This includes the need for laws to afford a measure of legal protection against arbitrary interferences by public authorities (235_42, 235_43).
- 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, indicating a lack of foreseeability (293_9).

3. **Lack of Clear Legal Basis**:
- The Court found that the legal framework in Ukraine did not meet the foreseeability requirement due to inconsistencies and the outdated 1988 Decree, which was not generally accepted as valid (287_54, 287_55).
- The Court noted serious concerns about the foreseeability and precision of the legislation governing public assemblies in Azerbaijan, leading to the possibility of public assemblies being abusively banned or dispersed (281_126, 288_130).

4. **Vague Provisions**:
- The Court found that the concept of committing an offence on behalf of an illegal organization in Turkey was not clearly defined, leading to a lack of foreseeability (233_67, 233_68, 233_69).

5. **Specific Cases**:
- The Court found that the statutory ban on holding public events near court buildings in Russia was too broadly drawn to be foreseeable (203_45).
- The Court found that the domestic courts' interpretation of the law regarding membership in an illegal organization in Armenia was reasonably foreseeable based on legal provisions and prior judicial decisions (256_108).
- The Court found that the legal framework in Ukraine did not meet the foreseeability requirement due to the outdated 1988 Decree and the lack of a clear and consistent legal procedure for holding peaceful demonstrations (287_54, 287_55).

6. **Criminal Code Provisions**:
- The Court examined the foreseeability of a provision in the Criminal Code that penalizes individuals who prevent the lawful exercise of freedom to assemble or demonstrate, or who seriously disturb the proceedings of a lawful assembly or demonstration. The provision specifies different penalties depending on whether the acts were perpetrated with violence or by illegal means, providing a clear legal basis and making the consequences of such actions foreseeable (615_21).