### Foreseeability, Specific

#General Observations

1. **Broadly Drawn Provisions**:
- The Court found that the statutory ban on holding public events near court buildings in Russia was too broadly drawn to be foreseeable (89_30, 89_39, 203_45, 405_15). 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 incompatible with Article 11 § 2 (405_15).

2. **Municipal Decisions**:
- The Court has scrutinized municipal decisions to ensure they comply with the foreseeability requirement (91_31, 91_60, 92_45, 92_49, 94_42, 94_45, 163_25, 167_21, 168_21, 380_49). For instance, the Court found that the authorities' failure to present evidence of unsurmountable obstacles to holding an assembly indicated a lack of foreseeability (380_49).

3. **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 (87_211, 87_212, 87_213, 87_214, 87_215, 87_216, 87_217, 87_218, 87_219, 615_21).

#Applications

1. **Clear Legal Basis and Precision**:
- **Custers, Deveaux, and Turk v. Denmark**: The applicants were clearly informed that entering a defense area would violate the law, meeting the foreseeability requirement (115_149, 115_150, 115_151).

2. **Lack of Clear Legal Basis**:
- **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).
- **Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova**: The Municipality's decision to reject an application for an assembly was not based on the relevant legal provisions, leading to a lack of foreseeability (163_25, 167_21, 168_21).

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).

4. **Practical Compliance with the Law**:
- In cases where individuals were explicitly warned about the legal consequences of their actions, the Court found the foreseeability requirement to be met (115_149, 115_150, 115_151).

#Country-Specific Observations

1. **Russia**:
- The Court found that the statutory ban on holding public events near court buildings was too broadly drawn to be foreseeable (89_30, 89_39, 203_45, 405_15).

2. **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).

3. **Ukraine**:
- The Court found that the legal framework 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).

4. **Conviction under Article 310.1 of the CAO**:
- 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).