### Foreseeability and Vagueness in Legal Provisions

#General Principles

1. **Foreseeability Requirement**: The Court emphasizes that 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 (536_17, 553_60, 594_101, 615_21).

2. **Role of Domestic Law**: The Court has noted that domestic laws should not grant excessively broad discretion to executive authorities, as this can lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The law must provide clear guidance to individuals about the consequences of their actions (553_60).

#Applications

1. **Clear Legal Basis and Precision**:
- **General Bans**: The Court has found that general bans, such as those on holding public events near court buildings, are too broadly drawn and fail the foreseeability requirement (89_30, 89_39, 203_45, 405_15).

2. **Lack of Clear Legal Basis**:
- **Excessive Discretion**: The Court has 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).
- **Lack of Procedure for Resolving Conflicts of Fundamental Rights**: The Court noted that the national law did not provide 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).

#Vague Provisions

1. **General Observations**:
- The notion of "contra bonos mores" in binding over powers was criticized for being too vague, making it difficult for individuals to know how to regulate their conduct (48_69, 48_88).
- The Court has identified several instances where the legislation was not sufficiently foreseeable. For example, in the case of 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).
- The Court has found that certain legal provisions were too vague to meet the foreseeability requirement. For example, the Court noted that the prohibitions listed in paragraph 4 of section 6 of the Public Events Act were not applicable and were not breached by the applicant, indicating a lack of clarity (336_68).

2. **Specific Cases**:
- **Galstyan v. Armenia**: The notion of "serious breach of public order" was found to be sufficiently precise, but the Court noted the diversity inherent in public order offenses (146_72).
- **Novikova and Others v. Russia**: The lack of clear definitions in the legislation led to a lack of foreseeability (180_131, 180_133).
- **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).
- **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).