Case 357_22
357_22 accessibility
22. The expressions “prescribed by law” and “in accordance with the
law” in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only require that the
impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refer
to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the
person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects. In particular, a norm
cannot be regarded as a “law” unless it is formulated with sufficient
precision to enable the citizen – if need be, with appropriate advice – to
foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the
consequences which a given action may entail. Experience shows, however,
that it is impossible to attain absolute precision in the framing of laws,
particularly in fields in which the situation changes according to the
prevailing views of society. In particular, the consequences of a given action
need not be foreseeable with absolute certainty: experience shows this to be
unattainable. Again, while certainty is highly desirable, it may bring in its
train excessive rigidity and the law must be able to keep pace with changing
circumstances. Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms
which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and
application are questions of practice. The role of adjudication vested in the
national courts is precisely to dissipate such interpretational doubts as may
remain; the Court’s power to review compliance with domestic law is thus
limited, as it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to
interpret and apply domestic law (see Kudrevičius and Others, cited above,
§§ 108 to 110).TÓTH v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT