Alinea 73 Raad van State 30 mei 2018

De term "bij wet voorzien" vereist volgens vaste rechtspraak van het EHRM niet alleen dat de inmengende maatregel een wettelijke basis in het nationale recht heeft, maar verwijst ook naar de kwaliteit van de betrokken wet. Deze moet voor de betrokken persoon toegankelijk zijn en de werking ervan moet voorzienbaar zijn. Het EHRM heeft in het arrest van 20 juni 2002, Al Nashif tegen Bulgarije, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0620JUD005096399, overwegingen 121 en 122, overwogen: "The Court reiterates that as regards the quality of law criterion, what is required by way of safeguards will depend, to some extent at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question […] It considers that the requirement of "foreseeability" of the law does not go so far as to compel States to enact legal provisions listing in detail all conduct that may prompt a decision to deport an individual on national security grounds. By the nature of things, threats to national security may vary in character and may be unanticipated or difficult to define in advance. There must, however, be safeguards to ensure that the discretion left to the executive is exercised in accordance with the law and without abuse." Voorts heeft het EHRM in het arrest van 4 december 2008, Dogru tegen Frankrijk, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1204JUD002705805, overwegingen 49 en 57, overwogen: "The Court reiterates that the words "prescribed by law" require that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refer to the quality of the law in question. The law should be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail […]. […] In that connection the Court reiterates that the scope of the notion of foreseeability depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed. It must also be borne in mind that, however clearly drafted a legal provision may be, its application involves an inevitable element of judicial interpretation, since there will always be a need for clarification of doubtful points and for adaptation to particular circumstances. A margin of doubt in relation to borderline facts does not by itself make a legal provision unforeseeable in its application. Nor does the mere fact that a provision is capable of more than one construction mean that it fails to meet the requirement of "foreseeability" for the purposes of the Convention. The role of adjudication vested in the courts is precisely to dissipate such interpretational doubts as remain, taking into account the changes in everyday practice […]."

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/b6bc7dd1ef74f5fb88e1b6615c4d53b6723515fbb83b3fa833f58121938fef53 | shasum -a 256