MÓŁKA v. POLAND DECISION 15 Minister, may dissolve any municipal council, district council or regional assembly. The Court concludes that the municipal councils, district councils and regional assemblies do not possess any inherent primary rulemaking powers and do not form part of the legislature of the Republic of Poland. Accordingly, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable to elections to those organs. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. C. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention In respect of the applicant’s allegation that he was deprived of his right to vote on account of his disability, the Court raised of its own motion a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. This provision reads: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 1. The parties’ submissions The Government argued that in the present case no issue arose under Article 8 of the Convention as the facts of the case did not fall within the scope of that provision. They also submitted that participation in local government elections did not constitute an integral part of the applicant’s private life. The applicant maintained that his right to respect for his private life had been breached. 2. The Court’s assessment The first question which arises is whether the facts of the case, in particular the lack of appropriate access for the applicant to a polling station in local elections, fall within the scope of the concept of “respect” for “private life” set forth in Article 8 of the Convention. In the present case the Article 8 complaint is related in substance not to an action, but to a lack of action by the State. The Court reiterates that while the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective “respect” for private