VAN EMPEL/DE JONG interpretation andstate liability 3 On the other hand, attention here will mainly focus on the noms which can be derived fom the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR). As a matter of fact, it is submitted that this body of aw has by now been recognised as affecting legal positions in the Netherlands on a regular basis. 4 By contrast it has been found that the Intermational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with an exception for Article 26, does not pay a meaningful role in current developments in Netherlands case law on"horizontal effect"of fundamental human rights. It has been suggested that this can be explained by the fact that contrary to the EChr there is no international judiciary institution provided for, and that the Dutch courts apparently feel they can achieve accepta ble results a lready on the com bined basis of the ECHR, the Netherlands Constitution and generalprinciples of Dutch civil law. 6 1.2. 1 The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(ECHR) Whilst for obvious rea sons focus here is still most frequently on"vertical"relations between private parties and public authority, also "horizontal"disputes between private parties inter se have come to be increasingly affected by those Convention-norms When considering now how the EChr (including of course the Protocols attached thereto)has come to condition contract aw and tort law between private parties in The Netherlands, it should be noted that we have chosen not to discuss here those provisions of the Convention which relate to family-relations, more particularly Articles 8 and 12. Indeed, whilst these are essentially private party-relations, the issues which arise in that context concem nevertheless involvement of public authorities(here also including the courts) with the public regulation of family relations. This being said the following cases may be mentioned, in a sequence accordingto the relevant ECHR-provisions Article 4: Prohibition of slavery and forced labour In a case brought by a professional football player who found him self hindered in a transfer by the rules of the national Netherlands football lea gue, the Hoge Raad was prepared to hear theargument based on Article 4, but rejected it on the See Netherlands Report for the XIX FIDE-Congress 2000, The Duties of Co-operation of National Authorities and Courts and the Communty Institutions under Article 10 EC, J.w. de Zwaan, The Netherlands(Judiciary and Authorities) and Articl 10 of the E Hels inki 2000,p.227-259 See L FM. Verhey, De horizontale werking van het EVRM, and P F. van der HeijdenG.J Heerma van Vos, Sociaal Recht en 40 par EVRM, both in: A W. Heringa(ed ) 40 iar Europees Verdrmg poor de rechten lan de Mens, Stchting NJOM-Boekerg Leden, 1990, p. 19-39 and p HR 2 February 1982, NJ1982, 424 and475. 6. L.F. M Verhey, ' De horizontale werking van het IVBPR', NCM Bulletin 19-7(1994), p 828-840.VAN EMPEL/DE JONG 6 interpretation and state liability3 . On the other hand, attention here will mainly focus on the norms which can be derived from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As a matter of fact, it is submitted that this body of law has by now been recognised as affecting legal positions in the Netherlands on a regular basis.4 By contrast it has been found that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with an exception for Article 26,5 does not play a meaningful role in current developments in Netherlands case law on “horizontal effect” of fundamental human rights. It has been suggested that this can be explained by the fact that contrary to the ECHR there is no international judiciary institution provided for, and that the Dutch courts apparently feel they can achieve acceptable results already on the combined basis of the ECHR, the Netherlands Constitution and general principles of Dutch civil law.6 1.2.1 The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) Whilst for obvious reasons focus here is still most frequently on “vertical” relations between private parties and public authority, also “horizontal” disputes between private parties inter se have come to be increasingly affected by those Convention-norms. When considering now how the ECHR (including of course the Protocols attached thereto) has come to condition contract law and tort law between private parties in The Netherlands, it should be noted that we have chosen not to discuss here those provisions of the Convention which relate to family-relations, more particularly Articles 8 and 12. Indeed, whilst these are essentially private party-relations, the issues which arise in that context concern nevertheless involvement of public authorities (here also including the courts) with the public regulation of family relations. This being said the following cases may be mentioned, in a sequence according to the relevant ECHR-provisions. Article 4: Prohibition of slavery and forced labour - In a case brought by a professional football player who found himself hindered in a transfer by the rules of the national Netherlands football league, the Hoge Raad was prepared to hear the argument based on Article 4, but rejected it on the 3. See Netherlands Report for the XIX FIDE-Congress 2000, The Duties of Co-operation of National Authorities and Courts and the Community Institutions under Article 10 EC, J.W. de Zwaan, ‘The Netherlands (Judiciary and Authorities) and Article 10 of the EC Treaty’, Helsinki 2000, p. 227-259. 4. See L.F.M. Verhey, ‘De horizontale werking van het EVRM’, and P.F. van der Heijden/G.J.J. Heerma van Vos, ‘Sociaal Recht en 40 jaar EVRM’, both in: A.W. Heringa (ed.), 40 jaar Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens, Stichting NJCM-Boekerij Leiden, 1990, p. 19-39 and p. 209-223. 5. HR 2 February 1982, NJ 1982, 424 and 475. 6. L.F.M. Verhey, ‘De horizontale werking van het IVBPR’, NJCM Bulletin 19-7 (1994), p. 828-840