### Foreseeability, Lack

#Lack of Clear Legal Basis

1. **General Bans**: The Court found that general bans, such as those on holding public events near court buildings, are too broadly drawn and fail the foreseeability requirement (203_45, 405_15).

2. **Ukraine**: 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found that the legal framework in Ukraine did not meet the foreseeability requirement due to inconsistencies and the outdated 1988 Decree, which was not generally accepted as valid (287_54, 287_55).

3. **Azerbaijan**: The Court noted serious concerns about the foreseeability and precision of the legislation governing public assemblies, leading to the possibility of public assemblies being abusively banned or dispersed (281_126, 288_130).

4. **Russia**: The Court criticized the lack of a legally binding time frame for authorities to give final decisions on public events, which rendered judicial remedies ineffective and failed the foreseeability requirement (227_13, 227_14).

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

6. **Armenia**: The Court found that the domestic courts' interpretation of the law regarding membership in an illegal organization was reasonably foreseeable based on legal provisions and prior judicial decisions (256_108).

7. **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).

8. **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).

9. **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).

#Specific Cases

1. **Mkrtchyan v. Armenia**: Article 180.1 of the CAO was not formulated with sufficient precision, leading to a lack of foreseeability (119_32, 119_33, 121_35, 121_36).

2. **Novikova and Others v. Russia**: The legislation in force before 2012 was not sufficiently foreseeable regarding what conduct could be classified as an offense due to a breach of the notification requirement under the Public Assemblies Act (180_131, 180_133, 180_189).

3. **Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova**: The Municipality's decision to reject an application for an assembly was based on reasons not provided for in the relevant sections of the Assemblies Act, making the interference not "prescribed by law" (163_25, 167_21, 168_21).

4. **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).

5. **Article 220 § 6 of the Turkish Penal Code**: The Court concluded that the provision was not foreseeable in its application as it did not afford legal protection against arbitrary interference (305_12).

6. **Gafgaz Mammadov and Subsequent Applications**: Serious concerns about the foreseeability and precision of the legislation governing public assemblies were noted in multiple cases (312_51, 348_37, 368_115, 380_52).

7. **Article 310.1 of the CAO**: The Court found that the legislation did not meet the foreseeability requirement, as the authorities failed to consider the fact that the demonstration had been notified and conducted peacefully (348_33, 348_37).

8. **Domestic Courts' Failure to Assess Lawfulness**: The Court noted that the domestic courts failed to assess the lawfulness of the decisions to refuse to authorize assemblies, endorsing the reasons indicated by the authorities without addressing the applicants' arguments concerning the arbitrariness of the refusals (380_51).

9. **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).