### Foreseeability, General

#General Principles

1. **Definition and Purpose**:
- For a restriction on the freedom of assembly to be "prescribed by law," it must meet the requirement of foreseeability. This means that the law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct and foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences of their actions (10_45, 41_65, 58_104, 118_106, 336_66, 357_22, 360_30, 380_38, 536_17, 553_60, 594_101, 615_21).
- Absolute precision in the framing of laws is unattainable, especially in fields where societal views are evolving. Laws may be somewhat vague, with their interpretation and application often left to judicial practice (10_45, 83_135, 118_106, 108_67, 357_22, 380_41).
- A law that confers discretion is not inherently inconsistent with the requirement of foreseeability, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity to protect individuals against arbitrary interference (47_98, 47_99).

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, 336_66, 360_30, 380_40, 440_23).
- The notion of "quality of the law" requires that the law be compatible with the rule of law, implying adequate safeguards against arbitrary interferences by public authorities (183_43, 380_38, 380_39).

3. **Role of National Courts**:
- The role of national courts is crucial in dissipating any remaining interpretational doubts, and the ECtHR's review is limited to ensuring that the effects of such interpretations are compatible with the Convention (10_45, 83_137, 108_66, 357_22, 380_42).

4. **Judicial Remedies**:
- The Court has noted that judicial remedies must be effective and timely to meet the foreseeability requirement. Post-hoc judicial remedies that do not provide timely redress are insufficient (227_13, 227_14).

#Applications

1. **Clear Legal Basis and Precision**:
- **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).
- **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).

2. **Lack of Clear Legal Basis**:
- **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).

3. **Specific Cases**:
- **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).