Foreseeability, Practical

#Scrutiny of Municipal Decisions
The Court has consistently scrutinized municipal decisions to ensure they comply with the foreseeability requirement. This scrutiny is evident in various cases where the Court examined whether individuals were adequately informed about the legal consequences of their actions. For instance, the Court found that participants in a demonstration were adequately informed about the dispersal through repeated megaphone announcements, ensuring that they could foresee the consequences of not complying with police orders (91_31, 91_60, 92_45, 92_49, 94_42, 94_45, 163_25, 167_21, 168_21, 282_232, 449_21).

#Explicit Warnings and Legal Consequences
In cases where individuals were explicitly warned about the legal consequences of their actions, the Court found the foreseeability requirement to be met. This was particularly noted in instances where participants were informed about the dispersal of demonstrations through repeated announcements (115_149, 115_150, 115_151, 282_232, 449_21).

#Non-Approved Events and Prosecution
The Court also noted that it should have been foreseeable to participants in non-approved events that failure to comply with police orders could lead to prosecution. This principle was highlighted in cases where the authorities failed to present evidence of unsurmountable obstacles to holding an assembly, indicating a lack of foreseeability (336_70, 380_49).

#Legislation and Foreseeability
In the case of the applicant's conviction under 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).

#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).