such as the Security Service, gathers, even without the use of intrusive and covert
methods, and stores, data relating to an individual's private life, where it uses and
releases the stored personal data and where it refuses to allow the subject an
opportunity to refute it, even where it relates to his distant past: Leander v.
Sweden (1987) 9 EHHR 433 at paragraph 48; Amann v. Switzerland (2000) 30
EHHR 843 at paragraph 65, Rotaru v. Romania (2000) 8 BHRC 449 at
paragraphs 43, 46; PG and JH v. UK (Application No 44787/98 ECtHR;
Judgment 25 September 2001) at paragraph 57.
23. As already mentioned, it is common ground that that the giving of an NCND
response to a subject access request would be an interference where the
public authority in fact holds personal data. Is the position the same if no personal
data are held? The Respondent relies on the decision of the European
Commission on Human Rights that a system of carrying out security checks
and vetting procedures with the Security Service in respect of BBC
employees, however much it may be objected to, does not per se interfere with
his right to respect for private life: Isabel Hilton v UK (1988) 57 DR 108
(Application No 12015/86). The complaint was of the obtaining and application of
personal information about her by the BBC and the Security Service and the
continued retention of it on file. It was stated at p 14 that:"An interference with the
right to respect for private life only occurs when security checks are based on
information about a person's private affairs."
24. The applicant in that case had not substantiated her allegation that the Security