Service had compiled and continued to maintain a file of personal
information about her. She should at least have shown that there was a
reasonable likelihood that the Security Service had compiled and continued
to retain personal information about her. She was unable to show that. The
Commission rejected the submission that the Klass case (see below), which
it distinguished, had the effect of encompassing every person who
considered that the Security Service may have compiled information about
them. The Respondent contends that it is the holding of personal data which
underpins the Article 8(1) right to complain of interference with respect for
private life. If no personal data are held, the right is not interfered with. A
fortiori a refusal to confirm that no personal data are held would not be an
interference.
25. The Respondent also relies on the context of the interference
complaint. The rights of the Complainant are fully protected by the role of
the Tribunal under RTPA in investigating the complaint and the claim. Unlike
the ordinary courts, the Tribunal has wide ranging and extraordinary powers
to ascertain whether relevant data are held or not and to determine the
issues of justification, which it is agreed would arise in the event of relevant
data being held.
26. There was considerable discussion at the hearing about the case of
Klass v. Germany (1978) 2 EHHR 214.at paragraphs 34, 37, 41. For the
Complainant it was contended that the case shows how it is not always
necessary for a complainant to prove that an interference has in fact
occurred under Article 8(1) before a justification is required under Article 8(2). In