In order to be compatible with the ECHR, any interference with Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 to the ECHR shall in the first place be prescribed by law, meaning that it should be sufficiently clear and foreseeable. The principle of foreseeability entails that an average person should be able to be aware and foresee, at all times and to a reasonable degree, consequences stemming from their actions to regulate their conduct accordingly.10 In this respect, the decision of the Constitutional Court declaring the Şor Party unconstitutional was very detailed and pointed to particular acts, committed by particular persons, as grounds for the declaration of unconstitutionality. Thus, this decision could provide a basis for an individualised approach for the persons affected by the restriction. However, the criteria set in the amendments for imposing the limitation on the right to stand are not always adequately legally defined: in particular, the four sub-items of Article 16(2)(f) refer to behaviours which have been mentioned (or considered) “as an argument in the decision of the Constitutional Court on the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the political party”. This formulation appears as excessively broad and vague.