Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
The court considerd the meaning of the phrase ‘prescribed by law’: ‘The Court recalls that one of the requirements flowing from the expression ‘prescribed by law’ is the foreseeability of the measure concerned. A norm cannot be regarded as a ‘law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able – 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.’
26229/95, (2002) 12 EHRC 486, [2002] ECHR 301
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 6-Mar-2008
The court considered the validity of bye-laws used to exclude protesters from land near a military base at Aldermarston.
Held: The byelaw which banned an ‘camp’ was sufficiently certain, but not that part which sought to ban any person who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.168005