Chapter 11 - Conclusion

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In a speech marking the Convention's 70th anniversary in autumn 2020, former President of the Court Sicilianos described the Convention system as a ‘unique international instrument’ that ‘has developed an unparalleled dynamic in its 70 years of existence’. Cases coming before the Court that originate from a conflict between private actors at the domestic level, termed ‘verticalised’ cases in this study, are a notable aspect of this unique system, making up a large share of the Court's case law. This has been illustrated throughout this study, starting with the case of Von Hannover (No. 2) in Chapter 1. The applicants in this case, Princess Caroline von Hannover and her husband, had first brought domestic proceedings against several publishing companies to prevent the (further) publication of photos of their private life, and then complained before the Court about the lack of adequate State protection of their right to respect for private life (Article 8 ECHR). In other words, a case between two private actors (i.e. a ‘horizontal’ case) at the domestic level transformed into a case between an individual and the State (i.e. a ‘vertical’ case) at the Court. The case of Von Hannover (No. 2), involving a conflict between the right to reputation and private life and the right to freedom of expression of two private individuals, is just one example of a verticalised case. Cases about family life, cases about the relationship between an employee and an employer, and cases related to one's surroundings – such as a case about serious health damage caused by a privately owned factory's emissions – are other examples of cases coming before the Court that can originate from a conflict between private actors at the domestic level. For example, a conflict at the domestic level between separated or divorced parents about custody or access rights can transform into a case between an individual and the State if one of the parents complains at the Court about the State's failure to enforce the custody agreement.

This tendency towards ‘verticalisation’ can be explained by Article 34 of the Convention, which contains the right for individuals to petition to the Court. Under this provision, complaints have to be directed against one of the Convention States to be admissible. Accordingly, complaints directed against private actors are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.