Based on Article 34 European Convention on Human Rights, individual applications must be directed against one of the Convention States. Originally ‘horizontal’ cases therefore must be ‘verticalised’ in order to be admissible. This means that a private actor who had first brought a procedure against another private actor before the domestic courts, must complain about State (in)action in his application to the European Court of Human Rights. Recently, some scholars and judges have raised procedural issues that may arise in these cases, but generally, these ‘verticalised’ cases have remained underexplored. To unravel verticalised cases before the ECtHR and to better understand procedural issues that may arise from them, this article provides a deeper understanding of the origins of verticalised cases and the Court’s approach to them. It is explained that verticalised cases before the ECtHR can be very different in nature. These differences are rooted in the different types of horizontal conflicts that may arise on the domestic level, the different relations between private actors they may concern, and the different Convention rights that may be at stake. The wide variety of verticalized cases is also reflected in the Court’s approach to them, as is the second main topic that the present article explores.

中文翻译：

---

欧洲人权法院审理的“垂直化”案件：对其特征和法院处理方法的分析

根据《欧洲人权公约》第 34 条，个人申请必须针对公约国家之一。因此，原本“横向”的案件必须“纵向化”才能被受理。这意味着首先在国内法院对另一私人行为者提起诉讼的私人行为者必须在向欧洲人权法院提出申请时抱怨国家（不）采取的行动。最近，一些学者和法官提出了这些案件中可能出现的程序问题，但总的来说，这些“垂直化”的案件仍未得到充分探索。为了在 ECtHR 面前解开纵向案件并更好地理解可能由此产生的程序问题，本文提供了对纵向案件起源和法院处理方法的更深入理解。据解释，ECtHR 之前的垂直案件在性质上可能大不相同。这些差异的根源在于国内层面可能出现的不同类型的横向冲突、他们可能关注的私人行为者之间的不同关系以及可能受到威胁的不同公约权利。法院对垂直案件的处理方式也反映了各种各样的垂直案件，这也是本文探讨的第二个主要主题。