This master's thesis examines the assessment of the clarity and precision of statutory provisions in the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia (CC), particularly from the perspective of the accessibility of legal language. The central thesis is that legal language functions as a socio-normative privilege: legal rules are more accessible to those familiar with legal terminology and established methods of interpretation. Decisions were collected through an API; from an initial set of 1,226 decisions, 165 were selected for quantitative metadata analysis and 35 for qualitative analysis. The findings show that the CC applies a consistent standard: a provision is sufficiently clear if its content can be determined through established methods of interpretation, with the standard being strictest in criminal law. The alleged ambiguities were classified into four categories: linguistic ambiguity, indeterminate legal concepts, the indistinguishability of criminal offences, and legal gaps. The key finding is a gap between the principled requirement of accessibility and the actual standard of review, as the formula of established methods of interpretation does not measure the comprehensibility of the text but rather the ability of a legally trained interpreter to reconstruct the norm's content ex post. The foreseeability standard under the ECHR case law does not mitigate this privilege either, as it permits reliance on legal advice and judicial interpretation. The thesis concludes that both the CC and the ECHR largely reproduce this linguistic privilege, while part of the indeterminacy stems from inherent characteristics of language and law. It is crucial to distinguish between legitimate, unavoidable indeterminacy and preventable inaccessibility, which requires not only linguistic simplification but also clear legislative drafting techniques, consideration of the intended audience, and broader access to legal knowledge and advice.
|
