CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43927/17 S.R. against Norway lodged on 3 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the withdrawal of the applicant’s right to drive motor vehicles. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that section   34 §   5 of the Road Traffic Act ( vegtrafikkloven ) did not form an adequate legal basis for the withdrawal. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention and, if yes, was the interference “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society”?   The parties are particularly invited to address the quality of the law, including whether the domestic legislation invoked as legal basis to withdraw the applicant’s right to drive motor vehicles was in accordance with the rule of law and sufficiently clear in its terms to give the applicant an adequate indication as to the circumstances in and conditions on which the authorities were empowered to withdraw his driving right (see, for example, mutatis mutandis , Libert v. France , no. 588/13, § 43, 22 February 2018; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 117, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 1365/07, § 39, 24 April 2008) and whether domestic law afforded the applicant a measure of legal protection against arbitrary interference by public authorities with the rights guaranteed by the Convention (see, for example, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria , no.   50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002, and the references therein).