Tokens: 92
.
Under
the
heading
of
lex
stricta
,
the
Court
merely
rules
out
unreasonable
interpretations
.
Normally
,
two
requirements
are
put
forward
in
this
regard
:
the
interpretation
must
be
aligned
with
the
essence
of
the
offence
and
must
be
reasonably
foreseeable.[247
]
Ultimately
,
the
two
requirements
overlap
insofar
that
they
end
up
testing
the
reasonableness
of
the
domestic
courts
’
interpretation.[248
]
Hence
,
there
is
no
added
value
in
distinguishing
between
the
two
requirements
.
The
severity
of
the
offence
is
also
invoked
as
an
element
of
foreseeability
,
considering
the
criminalisation
of
certain
serious
offences
as
“
obvious”.[249
]
At
the
end
of
the
day
,
the
level
of
protection
is
case
-
dependent
and
individually
assessed
,
depending
on
possible
legal
advice
and
the
defendant
’s
professional
status
and
technical
capacity.[250
]
In
other
words
,
the
lex
stricta
and
the
lex
certa
requirements
conflate
in
the
same
kind
of
subjective
foreseeability
test
.
Worse
still
,
this
standard
lends
itself
to
theoretical
and
practical
dogmatic
confusion
,
since
it
mingles
issues
of
different
nature
,
namely
the
principle
of
legality
and
the
principle
of
guilt
(
ignorantia
legis
non
excusat
,
mistake
of
law
,
Verbotsirrtum
)
.
This
confusion
is
aggravated
in
the
case
of
a
blanket
legal
norm
,
which
makes
the
punishability
of
the
criminal
offence
dependent
on
non
-
criminal
laws
and
regulations.[251
]
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O