Document Type : Article


1 Associate Prof., Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran College of Farabi, Qom, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran College of Farabi, Qom, Iran


Human rights violations include a large number of victims, often with similar injuries. This issue concerns the European Court of Human Rights with the issue of repetitive applications and excessive length of proceedings. The use of Pilot-Judgment Procedure and Class Action are solutions that the Court has been taken to ensure the speed of the trial. The main purpose of this paper is to examine these two methods of dealing with human rights violations and existing judicial procedures concerning them. Finally, it will be determined that these two methods of treatment will allow the Court to have a quick and effective hearing, but the manner in which the European Court of Human Rights uses them and the ambiguities regarding in way they are applied, violate the right of individual petition.


  1. A) Books
  2. Authers, John & Wolffe, Richard (2003), The Victim's Fortune: Inside the Epic Battle over the Debts of the Holocaust, HarperCollins.
  3. Fribergh, E,( 2008), Pilot judgments from the Court’s perspective, in council of Europe, Towards Stronger Implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights as a National level, Council of Europe Publishing.
  4. Garner, Bryan (2004), Black’s law Dictionary, Thomson publication, USA, 8th edition.
  5. Haider, D. (2013). The Pilot-Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Nijhoff.


  1. B) Articles
  2. Bazyler, Michael (2001),“The Legacy and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.25
  3. Coffee, J. (1995), “Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action” Columbia Law Review,Vol. 95, No.6, pp.1343-1465.
  4. Fyrnys, Markus (2011), “Expanding Competences by Judicial Lawmaking: The Pilot Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights”, German Law Journal, Vol.12, No.5, pp.1231-1260
  5. Hay, Bruce & Rosenberg, David (2000), “Sweetheart" and "Blackmail" Settlements in Class Actions: Reality and Remedy”, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol.75.
  6. MacKinnon, Catherine A., (1981), “Collective Harms under the Alien Tort Statute: A Cautionary Note on Class Actions”, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 6
  7. Minow, M. (1997). “Judge for the Situation: Judge Jack Weinstein, Creator of Temporary Administrative Agencies”, Columbia Law Review, Vol.97, No.7.
  8. Mullenix, Linda S, (1999), “Resolving Aggregate Mass Tort Litigation: The New Private Law Dispute Resolution Paradigm”, Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol.33.
  9. Puckett, G. Donald (1999), “Peering into a Black Box: Discovery and Adequate Attorney Representation for Class Action Settlements, Texas Law Review, Vol. 77.
  10. Rhode, Deborah (1982), “Class Conflicts in Class Actions”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 34.
  11. Sainati, Tatiana (2015), “Human Rights Class Actions: Rethinking the Pilot-Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 56.
  12. Schreiber Sol & Weissbach Laura (1998), “In Re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation: A Personal Account of the Role of the Special Master”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol.31.
  13. Steinhardt Ralph (1995), “Fulfilling the Promise of Filartiga: Litigating Human Rights Claims Against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos”, 20 yale international law journal.
  14. Summers, Robert (1974), “Evaluating and Improving Legal Processes-A Plea for “Process Values”, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 60.
  15. Shapiro, David (1998), “Class Actions: The Class as Party and Client”, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol.73.
  16. Van Schaack, Beth (2003), “Unfulfilled Promise: The Human Rights Class Action," University of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 2003.
  17. Voyatzis, P. (2010), “Dix arrêts importants dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme”, Athens Bar Association, available at:


  1. C) Documents
  2. Council of Europe, Resolution Res (2004)3 on Judgments Revealing an Underlying Systemic Problem of the Comm. of Ministers, 114th Sess., Doc. No. 1052 (2004).
  3. 2012 Report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government response to human rights judgments, U.K. Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, 2013.


  1. D) Cases
  2. Gaskin v. The United Kingdom judgment App. No.160, Eur. Ct. H.R(1989)
  3. Philippines v Marcos, 862 F2d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir 1988). United States Court of Appeals
  4. Kuri´c v. Slovenia, App. No. 26828/06, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2012)
  5. Yurie Nikolayvich Ivanov v. Ukrine, Application no. 40450/04), Eur. Ct. H.R(1989)
  6. Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 48059/06 & 2708/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. 56 (2011).
  7. Atanasiu v. Romania, App. Nos. 30767/05 & 33800/06, Eur. Ct. H.R. 237 (2010).
  8. Olaru v. Moldova, App. Nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 & 1316/07, Eur. Ct. H.R. 5–23 (2009).
  9. Rumpf v. Germany, App. No. 46344/06, Eur. Ct. H.R. 75 (2010).
  10. Burdov v. Russia, App. No. 33509/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. 144 (2009).
  11. Doe v Karadzic, 192 FRD 133, 138 n 8 (S D NY 2000). United States Court of Appeals.
  12. Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 141, Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria - 48059/06 and 2708/09 Judgment 10.5.2011 [Section IV]