CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT 31 2. The temporal scope of the Court’s examination 96. As already mentioned, the applicant has complained about three different time periods, arguing that each period is characterised by a different legal regime. 97. In other cases where the law has been reviewed in abstracto and amendments have been made to the legislation while the application was pending, the Court has limited itself to reviewing Convention compliance of the law in force at the time of its examination (see, for example, Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, cited above; Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009; and Roman Zakharov, cited above). 98. As stated above, the Court’s task is not to examine measures that have “directly affected” the applicant, but to review the relevant Swedish law and practice in abstracto. The Swedish legislation has been amended on many occasions since the application was lodged with the Court, also since the start of the third time period on 1 December 2009. It cannot be the task of the Court, when reviewing the law in abstracto, to examine compatibility with the Convention before and after every single legislative amendment. The review will therefore focus on the Swedish legislation as it stands at the time of the present examination. 3. The justification of the interference (a) General principles 99. The Court reiterates that any interference can only be justified under Article 8 § 2 if it is in accordance with the law, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims to which paragraph 2 of Article 8 refers and is necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve any such aim. The following general principles have been collated in Roman Zakharov (see §§ 228-236 of that judgment and the further references listed therein). 100. The wording “in accordance with the law” requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus meet quality requirements: it must be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (Roman Zakharov, § 228). 101. The Court has held on several occasions that the reference to “foreseeability” in the context of interception of telephone communications cannot be the same as in many other fields. Foreseeability in the special context of secret measures of surveillance cannot mean that an individual should be able to foresee when the authorities are likely to intercept communications so that he or she can adapt his or her conduct accordingly. However, especially where a power vested in the executive is exercised in secret, the risk of arbitrariness is evident. It is therefore essential to have