This article explores the role of language in the formation, interpretation, and application of criminal law, with particular emphasis on how linguistic precision and ambiguity interact with the principle of legality. Law, as a normative system, exists only through language, yet the language of legal norms is often burdened with semantic vagueness, terminological inconsistencies, and nomotechnical shortcomings. The authors argue that legal language oscillates between monosemy – the ideal of semantic precision – and polysemy – the unavoidable openness of meaning that enables contextual adaptation and interpretive flexibility. This tension is particularly pronounced in criminal law, where linguistic uncertainty may lead to violations of principle of legality. Drawing on Slovenian case law, the article demonstrates how courts navigate the interpretive challenges posed by imperfect legislative drafting. Through a qualitative analysis of judicial decisions, the authors examine two recurring linguistic issues: the use of imperfective verbs in the description of criminal conduct and the use of plural forms in statutory provisions. These issues raise fundamental questions about whether certain behaviors meet the threshold for criminal liability and whether judicial interpretation remains within the bounds of lex certa.
|
