his right to respect for his private life.
The Complainant is entitled to complain of arbitrary interference with his
psychological, as well as with his physical, integrity. Both aspects of privacy are
covered by the guarantee of respect for private life: Botta v. Italy (1998) 26
EHRR 241 at paragraph 32. It was submitted that interference covers a case such
as this, where an NCND response was given to a data subject request made in
circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Respondent
does possess relevant data. The Tribunal should be in a position to conclude by
reference to Article 8 that national security would not be interfered with by
requiring the Respondent to state that no relevant data were held, in order to
remove the cloud of suspicion that files have been compiled and maintained.
21. The Respondent's answer is that, if no relevant data are held by the
Respondent, the Complainant cannot succeed in his complaint and his claim of
interference with his private life. They are bound to fail, if based on Article 8(1)
and are only susceptible to normal judicial review principles. The competing
contentions turn on the scope of the right guaranteed by Article 8(1).
The scope of Article 8(1)
22. According to the Strasbourg jurisprudence the right to respect for private life
within Article 8(1) is not "susceptible to exhaustive definition" and should receive a
broad interpretation. Interference with the right occurs when a public authority,