The first part of this study explained that Article 34 ECHR stipulates that complaints about interferences with Convention rights have to be directed against a Convention State. Hence, complaints directed against private actors are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. This does not mean, however, that no effect is given to the Convention in horizontal relationships. Indeed, over the years the Court has increasingly offered substantive protection of Convention rights in relations between private actors. It has done so by imposing horizontal positive obligations on Convention States, requiring the latter to take action to secure the rights and liberties guaranteed in the Convention in relations between private actors. Such obligations originate from the Convention States’ responsibility for their own acts and omissions in relation to acts and omissions of private actors.

The concept of horizontal positive obligations is the focus of the first chapter (Chapter 5) in this Part II, where it is explained that through the concept of horizontal positive obligations, the Court offers substantive protection of Convention rights in relation to a broad variety of relations between private actors and Convention rights. These obligations have in common that they are often imposed in cases originating from a conflict between two private actors (i.e. a horizontal conflict) at the domestic level. In other words, even if complaints have to be directed against a Convention State to be admissible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, this does not yet mean that the vertical proceedings before the Court cannot originate from a horizontal conflict at the domestic level. In cases, for example, concerning the right to reputation and respect for private life versus the right to freedom of expression, an individual may have brought proceedings at a domestic court to prevent a newspaper or magazine publisher from publishing (or continuing to publish) photos of the individual's private life. Because of Article 34, and in contrast to the domestic courts, the ECtHR cannot deal directly with such behaviour by a publisher. However, the individual victim of a breach of reputation by a private actor can complain before the ECtHR about the State's lack of compliance with its positive obligations to protect the individual's rights under Article 8 ECHR. If, therefore, the domestic courts decide not to grant an injunction preventing publication of the photos, the individual can lodge an application at the ECtHR to complain about the domestic courts’ decision.