20 KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT refusal to approve the location of a public event. The Government had not cited any cases of successful judicial review. 63. The Government submitted that the applicant had challenged the refusal to approve the location of his public event before the domestic courts, which had carefully examined his complaint. He had participated in the hearings and had appealed to a higher court. The appellate court had re-examined the case in its entirety without being bound by the arguments raised in the appeal submissions. The applicant had also lodged cassation appeals. He had therefore had an effective remedy at his disposal. 2. The Court’s assessment 64. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy in respect of grievances which can be regarded as arguable in terms of the Convention (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 96, ECHR 2000 XI). The Court has found that the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly was violated. There was therefore an arguable claim under Article 11 of the Convention. 65. The Court reiterates that the “effectiveness” of a “remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant. At the same time, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157 and 158, ECHR 2000 XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 96, 10 January 2012). 66. The scope of the Contracting States’ obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint. In the area of complaints about restrictions on the freedom of assembly imposed before the date of an intended assembly – such as, for example, a refusal of prior authorisation or approval where they are required – the Court has already observed that the notion of an effective remedy implies the possibility of obtaining an enforceable decision concerning such restrictions before the time at which the assembly is intended to take place (see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, §§ 344-45). 67. In the recent case of Lashmankin and Others (cited above, §§ 342-61) the Court found that the applicants had not had at their disposal an effective remedy to challenge refusals to approve the location or time of their public event or the manner in which it was to be conducted. The judicial review remedy under former Chapter 25 of the CCP and the Judicial Review Act available at the material time suffered from two defects which rendered it ineffective under Article 13. Firstly, it did not allow an enforceable judicial decision to be obtained on the authorities’ refusal to approve an event’s location, time or manner of conduct before its planned