GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND JUDGMENT 29 It must also be borne in mind that, however clearly drafted a legal provision may be, its application involves an inevitable element of judicial interpretation, since there will always be a need for clarification of doubtful points and for adaptation to particular circumstances. A margin of doubt in relation to borderline facts does not by itself make a legal provision unforeseeable in its application. Nor does the mere fact that such a provision is capable of more than one construction mean that it fails to meet the requirement of “foreseeability” for the purposes of the Convention. The role of adjudication vested in the courts is precisely to dissipate such interpretational doubts as remain, taking into account the changes in everyday practice (see Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others and Rekvényi, cited above). (ii) Application of the above principles to the present case 66. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the applicants' arguments as to the alleged unforeseeablity of Polish law do not concern the legal provisions on which the refusal to register their association was actually based, namely Article 32 of the Constitution and various provisions of the Law on associations and the Civil Code (see paragraphs 32, 36, 54 and 55-58 above). The Court notes in this respect that the Law on associations gives the courts the power to register associations (section 8) and in this context to verify, inter alia, the conformity with the law of the memorandum of association (section 16), including the power to refuse registration if it is found that the conditions of the Law on associations have not been met (section 14) (see paragraph 39 above). In the present case the Polish courts refused registration because they considered that the applicants' association could not legitimately describe itself as an “organisation of a national minority”, a description which would give it access to the electoral privileges conferred under section 5 of the 1993 Elections Act (see paragraph 41 above), as the Silesian people did not constitute a “national minority” under Polish law. The applicants essentially criticised the absence of any definition of a national minority or any procedure whereby such a minority could obtain recognition under domestic law. They contended that that lacuna in the law made it impossible for them to foresee what criteria they were required to fulfil to have their association registered and left an unlimited discretionary power in that sphere to the authorities (see paragraphs 56-58 above). 67. It is not for the Court to express a view on the appropriateness of methods chosen by the legislature of a respondent State to regulate a given field. Its task is confined to determining whether the methods adopted and the effects they entail are in conformity with the Convention. With regard to the applicants' argument that Polish law did not provide any definition of a “national minority”, the Court observes firstly, that, as