On 12 July 2018, the central government of the Netherlands changed its approach relating to traveller camps in the Netherlands. This change constitutes a huge political shift, as the government had previously adopted a ‘hands-off’ and ‘repressive-inclusion’ strategy, which was especially known for its infamous ‘phase-out policy’ or ‘extinction policy’ of traveller camps. This has now been replaced by a fundamental rights-proof approach that facilitates the travellers’ way of life. This article aims to uncover the various actions undertaken by international and national actors that seem to have contributed to the Dutch government’s changed stance. It looks particularly at the role played by four national actors: the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, the National Ombudsman, the Public Interest Litigation Project, and activist Roma, Sinti and travellers and their various interest groups. The article concludes that these actors’ efforts to establish political and legal change were successful as they addressed the same issue from different vantage points and through different means. That is, they all focused on the issue of the incompatibility of the phase-out policy with fundamental rights standards and relied on a variety of means available to them (such as litigation, lobbying, reporting, raising international awareness, and ensuring media coverage). By drawing some general lessons from this case study, this article aims to contribute to the existing literature on mobilizing human rights. In particular, it focuses on the (legal) activities national actors can undertake to bring about political and legal change in order to enforce the compliance of national authorities with fundamental rights standards in both law and policy.

Scholars who set out to study the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or Convention) system will find an abundance in research methods to choose from. In the early years of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court), the methodological toolbox of the ECHR scholar largely consisted of qualitative and classical-doctrinal methods to study the Court's case law, as well as historical, philosophical and theoretical studies to contextualize the ECHR system. Today, these 'traditional' methods not only have evolved to reflect the enormous increase of, and scholarly interest in, the Court's case law but have also been complemented by empirical qualitative and quantitative, statistical and machine learning research methods. This contribution traces these major developments in the methods applied to studying the Court. By providing a comprehensive discussion of the different approaches, including their application, value and potential weaknesses, this contribution helps scholars understand, use and learn from the rich methodological toolbox of the ECHR scholar.

Mijn dank gaat uit naar Nienke Doornbos en Martin Blaakman voor hun feedback tijdens het schrijven van dit artikel. 1 Kamerstukken II 1996/97, 25333, nr. 3, p. 1. 2 In uitspraken van het College voor de Rechten van de Mens, literatuur en de 'volksmond' wordt de term uitsterfbeleid gebruikt. 3 VROM 2006, p. 3. Dit is geen beleid in formele zin, maar het heeft voor veel gemeenten wel als kader gefunctioneerd bij de beleidsvorming. 4

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.