private life. The fact that the request is based on reasonable grounds for a
belief that relevant data are held and that the non-committal answer might
not be sufficient to allay a lingering suspicion of their existence does not
constitute interference with the right to respect for private life. As appears
from the decision of the Strasbourg Court in Zehnalova v. Czech
Republic (14 May 2002) at p 12 (following Botta above), Article 8 does
not apply each time that the complainant believes that his every day life
has been disrupted or his feelings or state of mind have been upset. There
is no suggestion, on the facts of this case, that the receipt of the NCND
response has caused the Complainant either to take, or not to take, any
course of action. At the highest it is a simple question of discomfiture of
his state of mind. On the very limited assistance we can draw from Hilton, a
security check per se (presumably accompanied by the knowledge of
there being, or being about to be, such a security check) is not an Article 8
interference: nor similarly are the distress, inconvenience or discomfiture
of a disabled person unable to use the private beaches in Botta. There is
no decided case in which effect on the state of mind alone has been
considered to be sufficient. Not every personal discomfiture,
inconvenience, unallayed concern or disturbance with peace of mind is an
interference with private life. The belief of the aggrieved Complainant
entitles him to bring the matter to the Tribunal (s 65(4)). Using the powers
conferred on them the Tribunal can ascertain from the intelligence services
whether or not his beliefs are correct.