MENNESSON v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 11 words, according to the Government, the applicants could not have been unaware of the public-policy nature of the prohibition on surrogacy arrangements under French law when they entered into the agreement, or of the difficulties likely to arise subsequently. 56. They added that in accordance with the case-law on Article 47 of the Civil Code deriving from the judgment of the Court of Cassation of 12 November 1986, the authorities were justified in refusing to give effect in France to civil-status documents drawn up in a third State where the details recorded therein did not match the reality. They specified further that, other than in isolated cases, there had been no practice in France, at the date of birth of the third and fourth applicants, consisting in registering the birth particulars of children born as the result of a surrogacy agreement performed abroad. That distinguished the facts of the present case from those in Wagner and J.M.W.L., cited above, in which the applicants had been deprived of the benefit of this type of practice with regard to adoption. (iii) The Court 57. According to the Court’s case-law, the expression “in accordance with the law” in Article 8 § 2 requires that the measure or measures in question should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects. In order for the law to meet the criterion of foreseeability, it must set forth with sufficient precision the conditions in which a measure may be applied, to enable the persons concerned – if need be, with appropriate advice – to regulate their conduct accordingly (see, for example, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V, and Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, § 124, ECHR 2013). 58. The Court considers that these conditions are met in the present case. It notes first of all that the applicants have not adduced any evidence in support of their assertion that a more liberal practice used to exist in France regarding the recognition of a legal parent-child relationship between children born abroad as the result of a surrogacy agreement and the intended parents. It observes next that at the material time Articles 16-7 and 16-9 of the Civil Code expressly provided that surrogacy agreements were null and void and specified that this was on public-policy grounds. Admittedly, the Court of Cassation had not given a general ruling on the question of recognition under French law of the legal parent-child relationship between intended parents and children born abroad as the result of a surrogacy agreement. It had, however, previously specified – in a case in which the surrogate mother was the biological mother – that such an agreement contravened the principles of the inalienability of the human body and civil status. It had concluded in a similar case that this precluded the establishment of a legal parent-child relationship between the child thus