15 judgesK. Lenaerts, L. Bay Larsen, A. Arabadjiev, C. Lycourgos, E. Regan, F. Biltgen, Z. Csehi, J.-C. Bonichot, M. Safjan, S. Rodin, P.G. Xuereb, J. Passer, D. Gratsias, M.L. Arastey Sahún, M. Gavalec
69Those recitals thus confirm that, where a Member State lays down measures restricting freedom of movement on grounds of public policy, public security or public health by implementing an EU measure such as Directive 2004/38, it must in particular comply, first, with the principle of legal certainty, which requires that legal rules be clear and precise and that their application be foreseeable by those subject to them, so that those concerned may know precisely the extent of the obligations which the legislation in question imposes on them and that they may be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and take steps accordingly (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 March 2019, Unareti, C‑702/17, EU:C:2019:233, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited, and of 17 November 2022, Avicarvil Farms, C‑443/21, EU:C:2022:899, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited). Second, that Member State must comply with the general principle of EU law relating to good administration, which lays down, inter alia, the obligation to state reasons for acts and decisions adopted by national authorities (judgment of 7 September 2021, Klaipėdos regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras, C‑927/19, EU:C:2021:700, paragraph 120 and the case-law cited). Third, and in accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), it must respect the right to an effective judicial remedy enshrined in the first paragraph of Article 47 thereof, which provides, inter alia, for the right of access to a court or tribunal with the power to ensure respect for the rights guaranteed by EU law and, to that end, to consider all the issues of fact and of law that are relevant for resolving the case (judgment of 6 October 2020, État luxembourgeois (Right to bring an action against a request for information in tax matters), C‑245/19 and C‑246/19, EU:C:2020:795, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited).