18 MÓŁKA v. POLAND DECISION the context of the allocation of limited State resources (see O’Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.), no. 54725/00, 28 February 2002; Sentges, cited above; and Pentiacova and Others, cited above). In view of their awareness of the funds available to provide such access for disabled persons, the national authorities are in a better position to carry out this assessment than an international court. Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant has not shown, as was pointed out by the domestic courts, that he could not have been assisted in entering the polling station by other persons. The Court also observes that section 46 of the Local Elections Act expressly provides that a disabled voter may be assisted in voting by another person, but not by members of the electoral commission or election monitors. It is also of relevance for the assessment of the respondent Government’s compliance with their positive obligations under Article 8 in the present case that the situation complained of concerned one isolated incident as opposed to a series of obstacles, architectural or otherwise, preventing physically disabled applicants from developing their relationships with other people and the outside world. Bearing in mind the above considerations, the Court considers that the respondent State cannot be said, in the special circumstances of the present case, to have failed to ensure respect for the applicant’s private life. Furthermore, the Court notes that, pursuant to the Construction Act, which entered into force on 1 January 1995, public buildings and blocks of flats constructed after that date must be provided with facilities which are necessary for their use by people with disabilities, in particular those in wheelchairs. Since 31 May 2001, the date on which the Law of 12 April 2001 on Elections to the Sejm and the Senate of the Republic of Poland entered into force, the domestic law has also obliged the relevant authorities to provide adequate access for disabled voters to polling stations during parliamentary elections. Those legislative provisions would indicate that the respondent State has not been oblivious to the plight of disabled voters. The development represented by the Law of 12 April 2001 may also be relevant for the present case in as much as the same polling stations are usually used both for national and local elections. It follows that the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. D. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention The applicant also alleged a breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The former provision provides: