### Foreseeability and Legitimate Aims

The Court has consistently examined specific legal provisions that restrict the right to freedom of assembly, ensuring that these provisions are based on legitimate aims and are necessary in a democratic society. This examination is crucial to determine whether the laws meet the foreseeability requirement, which mandates that laws must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct and foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences of their actions (18_100, 18_101, 23_115, 26_104, 30_105, 60_107, 149_69, 149_71, 223_50, 301_23, 362_23, 536_17, 553_60, 594_101, 615_21).

Clear Legal Basis and Precision

1. **Administrative Penalty for Profane Language**: The Court found that 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).

2. **Ban on Public Events Near Court Buildings**: The Court observed that 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).

3. **Section 2(3) of Georgian Law**: This section provided for restrictions on the right to assembly based on legitimate aims such as protecting national security, public safety, and the rights of others. The law required that any interference be based on law, necessary in a democratic society, non-discriminatory, and proportionate, ensuring that the protected interest outweighs the damage inflicted (594_101).

4. **Article 173 of the CAO**: In a case involving the applicant's arrest at a demonstration and subsequent conviction of administrative offenses, the Court found that the interference was "prescribed by law" as it was based on Article 173 of the CAO. The Court accepted that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others (598_54).

Lack of Clear Legal Basis

1. **General Ban on Public Events Near Court Buildings**: The Court found that the provisions of the Public Events Act prohibiting public gatherings in the vicinity of court buildings did not meet the quality of law requirement. The absolute nature of the ban, coupled with the wide discretion of local executive authorities in determining what is considered "in the immediate vicinity" of court buildings, made the law too broadly drawn and incompatible with Article 11 § 2 (405_15).

2. **Lack of Procedure for Resolving Conflicts of Fundamental Rights**: The Court noted that the national law did not provide for any procedure for the relevant authorities to resolve conflicts between the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the rights of others. This led to discrepancies in the system and a lack of foreseeability (440_26).

3. **Unclear Definitions of "Campaigning" vs. "Informing"**: The domestic courts did not explain which of the applicant’s expressions amounted to "campaigning" as opposed to "informing," leading to a lack of foreseeability regarding what constituted a breach of the law (466_80).

4. **Excessive Discretion**: The Court has previously asserted that domestic law granted excessively broad discretion to executive authorities in proposing changes to the location of public events, often leading to arbitrary and discriminatory use of these powers. This lack of precision and clarity in the law fails the foreseeability requirement (553_60).

Practical Compliance with the Law

1. **Notification and Dispersal of Demonstrations**: In a case involving the dispersal of a demonstration, the Court found that the participants were adequately informed about the dispersal through repeated megaphone announcements, ensuring that the participants could foresee the consequences of not complying with the police orders (449_21).

Quality of Law

1. **Failure to Meet Quality of Law Requirements**: 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 (466_50).

Judicial Clarifications

The Court has noted that while judicial clarifications, such as those provided by the Supreme Court, are welcome, further measures are necessary to address general issues related to the foreseeability of laws governing public assemblies (553_60).

Specific Cases

1. **Separate Proceedings under Article 20.2 of the CAO**: In a case where applicants were prosecuted under Article 20.2 of the CAO for non-compliance with a police order to disperse, the Court left open the question of whether it was foreseeable to the applicants that they would be prosecuted in separate proceedings for what was classified as a separate non-approved demonstration (536_17).

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).