MÓŁKA v. POLAND DECISION 17 The Court further notes that the present case relates to the applicant’s involvement in the life of his local community and the exercise of his civic duties. Thus, it may be argued that the situation in the present case touches upon the applicant’s possibility of developing social relations with other members of his community and the outside world, and is pertinent to his own personal development. The Court also considers that it cannot be excluded that the authorities’ failure to provide appropriate access to the polling station for the applicant, who wishes to lead an active life, might have aroused feelings of humiliation and distress capable of impinging on his personal autonomy, and thereby on the quality of his private life. The Court underlines in this respect that the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom (see Pretty, cited above, § 65). The Court recalls that in two previous cases which involved complaints brought by disabled persons it held that Article 8 of the Convention was not applicable to situations in which it found no direct and immediate link between the measures sought by an applicant and the latter’s private life (see Botta, cited above, § 34, and Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V). The first of those cases concerned the right of the disabled applicant to gain access to a private beach at a place distant from his normal place of residence during his holidays, in which the Court found that such right concerned interpersonal relations of such broad and indeterminate scope that there could be no conceivable direct link between the measures the State was to take and the applicant’s private life. The second case concerned a complaint that a large number of public buildings in the applicants’ home town were not equipped with access facilities for people with impaired mobility, in which the Court found by a majority that the applicants had failed to demonstrate the existence of a special link between the lack of access to the buildings in question and the particular needs of the first applicant’s private life. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court does not rule out the possibility that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, a sufficient link would exist to attract the protection of Article 8. However, the Court does not find it necessary finally to determine the applicability of the Article in the present case since, for the reasons which follow, the application is in any event inadmissible on other grounds. In cases such as the present one, which concerns the issue of the State’s positive obligations inherent in effective “respect” for private life, the Court reiterates that regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole and to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in this area. The Court observes that in the present case this margin of appreciation is even wider as the issue at stake involves the provision of adequate access for the disabled to polling stations, which must necessarily be assessed in