16 MÓŁKA v. POLAND DECISION or family life (see, inter alia, X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, § 23, and Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 422, § 33). However, the boundaries between the State’s positive and negative obligations under this provision do not always lend themselves to precise definition; the applicable principles are, nonetheless, similar. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole, and in both contexts the State is recognised as enjoying a certain margin of appreciation (see, among many other authorities, Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 57, ECHR 2004-..., and Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, § 105, 6 October 2005). Furthermore, even in relation to the positive obligations flowing from the first paragraph, “in striking [the required] balance the aims mentioned in the second paragraph may be of a certain relevance” (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 41). As the Court has had previous occasion to remark, the concept of “private life” is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. It covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, p. 11, § 22). It can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual’s physical and social identity (see Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I). Article 8 also protects a right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and it may include activities of a professional or business nature. There is, therefore, a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of “private life” (see, inter alia, Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 57, ECHR 2003-I). Likewise, the Court has held that the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of Article 8 guarantees (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III). The Court notes that in a number of cases it has held that Article 8 is relevant to complaints about public funding to facilitate the mobility and quality of life of disabled applicants (see Marzari v. Italy (dec.), no. 36448/9, 4 May 1999; Maggiolini v. Italy, (dec.), no. 35800/97, 13 January 2000; Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003; and Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-...). More generally, the Court observes that the effective enjoyment of many of the Convention rights by disabled persons may require the adoption of various positive measures by the competent State authorities. In this respect, the Court refers to various texts adopted by the Council of Europe which stress the importance of full participation of people with disabilities in society, in particular in political and public life (see “Relevant domestic and international law” above).