Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[Carana]

The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.

So there it is.

The first instance court has power to reject an appeal ...

Yes, it does, but the grounds for doing so are limited.

[stephen25000]

Yes, it does, but the grounds for doing so are limited.

Read what was said earlier.

[Montclair]

This is the reference I was given by a Portuguese lawyer:

No prazo de 30 dias, o Recorrente apresenta Recurso da sentença, juntando as motivações do referido recurso, podendo ser apresentadas motivações de direito e/ou de facto. O recurso é apresentado no tribunal a quo (Tribunal de 1.ª instância, que proferiu a Sentença).
O juiz que profere a Sentença, analisa o requerimento e lê as motivações. Se, após as ler, entender que a sua decisão se mantem, analisa os pressupostos de apresentação do recurso:
Se é uma decisão passível de recurso (629.º do CPC)
Se é tempestivo (638.º, n.º 1, do CPC)
Se o recorrente tem legitimidade (631.º)
Se pagou taxa de justiça (7.º/2 Regime das Custas Processuais)

Se os pressupostos estiverem todos cumpridos, o juiz profere despacho de admissão do recurso, em que diz que estão preenchidos todos os pressupostos e que, por isso, os autos (o processo, digamos) deve subir para o tribunal da relação de X (Lisboa, neste caso) e com que efeito sobe (devolutivo ou suspensivo).

Quando o recurso é apenas quanto a matéria de Direito, o recorrente pode requerer que o recurso seja directamente apreciado pelo STJ, sem ter de passar pela Relação - é o que se chama de "recurso per saltum" (art. 678.º do CPC).

Quick translation, although I have done one already:

Within a period of 30 days, the Appellant presents his appeal of the sentence, enclosing the motivations for referred appeal, motivations of law and/or fact can be presented. The appeal is presented in the court a quo (the first instance court, which gave the sentence).

The judge who gave the sentence, analyses the appeal and reads the motivations. If, after having read them, if she feels that her sentence should be maintained, she analyses the requirements for presenting an appeal:

- If the decision is susceptible to appeal (629º of the CPC)
- If it is presented on time (638º, nº1 of the CPC)
- If the appellant has the legitimacy to do so (631º)
- If the justice fee has been paid (7º/2 rules of Processual Code)

If the requirements have been fulfilled, the judge decrees the official notice of appeal, in which she says that all of the requirements have been fulfilled, and that, for this, the act (the process, let's say) must go up to the Tribunal da Relação and with which effect it goes up (devolutive or suspensive).

If the appeal is based only on the matter of Law, the appellant can ask that the appeal be directly appreciated by the Supreme Court of Justice, bypassing the Tribunal da Relação -which is called "recurso per saltum" (article 678º of the CPC)

[ferryman]

Yes, it does, but the grounds for doing so are limited.

How about grounds that the appellant (in the appeal!) has falsely accused the victors of the first round of responsibility for the death of their daughter, covering up the 'fact' of her death, fabricating an 'abduction' and launching a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead) daughter's name?

Or of grievously misrepresenting the positions of key English detectives in the (shelved) investigation?

And I think it may be a mistake to suppose that all that is not in the judgment.

I don't think we see the full judgment on line.

I think that beneath the headline that Amaral's book caused the McCanns anxiety (proved!) is a wealth of information explaining why.

[slartibartfast]

How about grounds that the appellant (in the appeal!) has falsely accused the victors of the first round of responsibility for the death of their daughter, covering up the 'fact' of her death, fabricating an 'abduction' and launching a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead) daughter's name?

Or of grievously misrepresenting the positions of key English detectives in the (shelved) investigation?

And I think it may be a mistake to suppose that all that is not in the judgment.

I don't think we see the full judgment on line.

I think that beneath the headline that Amaral's book caused the McCanns anxiety (proved!) is a wealth of information explaining why.

Usual wishful thinking.

[stephen25000]

How about grounds that the appellant (in the appeal!) has falsely accused the victors of the first round of responsibility for the death of their daughter, covering up the 'fact' of her death, fabricating an 'abduction' and launching a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead) daughter's name?

Or of grievously misrepresenting the positions of key English detectives in the (shelved) investigation?

And I think it may be a mistake to suppose that all that is not in the judgment.

I don't think we see the full judgment on line.

I think that beneath the headline that Amaral's book caused the McCanns anxiety (proved!) is a wealth of information explaining why.

Anxiety ?

That was self induced.

No one forced the mccanns to do what they did.

However, Madeleine paid the price for that.

[ferryman]

Well, Amaral and his legal team seem to be running it down to the wire in presenting their appeal.

Let's see what happens when they do.

[G-Unit]

This is the reference I was given by a Portuguese lawyer:

No prazo de 30 dias, o Recorrente apresenta Recurso da sentença, juntando as motivações do referido recurso, podendo ser apresentadas motivações de direito e/ou de facto. O recurso é apresentado no tribunal a quo (Tribunal de 1.ª instância, que proferiu a Sentença).
O juiz que profere a Sentença, analisa o requerimento e lê as motivações. Se, após as ler, entender que a sua decisão se mantem, analisa os pressupostos de apresentação do recurso:
Se é uma decisão passível de recurso (629.º do CPC)
Se é tempestivo (638.º, n.º 1, do CPC)
Se o recorrente tem legitimidade (631.º)
Se pagou taxa de justiça (7.º/2 Regime das Custas Processuais)

Se os pressupostos estiverem todos cumpridos, o juiz profere despacho de admissão do recurso, em que diz que estão preenchidos todos os pressupostos e que, por isso, os autos (o processo, digamos) deve subir para o tribunal da relação de X (Lisboa, neste caso) e com que efeito sobe (devolutivo ou suspensivo).

Quando o recurso é apenas quanto a matéria de Direito, o recorrente pode requerer que o recurso seja directamente apreciado pelo STJ, sem ter de passar pela Relação - é o que se chama de "recurso per saltum" (art. 678.º do CPC).

Quick translation, although I have done one already:

Within a period of 30 days, the Appellant presents his appeal of the sentence, enclosing the motivations for referred appeal, motivations of law and/or fact can be presented. The appeal is presented in the court a quo (the first instance court, which gave the sentence).

The judge who gave the sentence, analyses the appeal and reads the motivations. If, after having read them, if she feels that her sentence should be maintained, she analyses the requirements for presenting an appeal:

- If the decision is susceptible to appeal (629º of the CPC)
- If it is presented on time (638º, nº1 of the CPC)
- If the appellant has the legitimacy to do so (631º)
- If the justice fee has been paid (7º/2 rules of Processual Code)

If the requirements have been fulfilled, the judge decrees the official notice of appeal, in which she says that all of the requirements have been fulfilled, and that, for this, the act (the process, let's say) must go up to the Tribunal da Relação and with which effect it goes up (devolutive or suspensive).

If the appeal is based only on the matter of Law, the appellant can ask that the appeal be directly appreciated by the Supreme Court of Justice, bypassing the Tribunal da Relação -which is called "recurso per saltum" (article 678º of the CPC)

Reading that then, the appeal goes to the judge who gave the judgement, and she can allow the appeal  if she feels that they have successfully refuted her findings. If, on the other hand, she wishes to stand by her findings she checks that everything is in order (timescsale, fees paid, etc.) and passes it up the chain for others to decide.

[ferryman]

- If the appellant has the legitimacy to do so (631º)

I would suggest that that provision includes that there must be points of law or facts in the judgment that can legitimately be disputed.

If there are none, he's had it.

And I don't think Amaral can legitimately accuse the McCanns of direct culpability in the demise of their daughter when there's no proof she's dead.

Neither can he legitimately ascribe pejorative (to the the McCanns) comments of key English investigators that were similarly never made.

These points must weigh against Amaral's chances (of being granted an appeal) ....

[Montclair]

Reading that then, the appeal goes to the judge who gave the judgement, and she can allow the appeal  if she feels that they have successfully refuted her findings. If, on the other hand, she wishes to stand by her findings she checks that everything is in order (timescsale, fees paid, etc.) and passes it up the chain for others to decide.

Yes, that is how it works.

[Montclair]

Well, Amaral and his legal team seem to be running it down to the wire in presenting their appeal.

Let's see what happens when they do.

How do you know that they haven't already submitted the appeal? They aren't obliged to make an announcement to the world.

[ferryman]

Reading that then, the appeal goes to the judge who gave the judgement, and she can allow the appeal  if she feels that they have successfully refuted her findings. If, on the other hand, she wishes to stand by her findings she checks that everything is in order (timescsale, fees paid, etc.) and passes it up the chain for others to decide.

No.

That makes a mockery of 'appeal'.

[ferryman]

How do you know that they haven't already submitted the appeal? They aren't obliged to make an announcement to the world.

As if they wouldn't ....

[Montclair]

- If the appellant has the legitimacy to do so (631º)

I would suggest that that provision includes that there must be points of law or facts in the judgment that can legitimately be disputed.

If there are none, he's had it.

And I don't think Amaral can legitimately accuse the McCanns of direct culpability in the demise of their daughter when there's no proof she's dead.

Neither can he legitimately ascribe pejorative (to the the McCanns) comments of key English investigators that were similarly never made.

These points must weigh against Amaral's chances (of being granted an appeal) ....

Ferryman, you just don't want to understand at all! The above point means that the person filing the appeal is the defendant and not someone else.

[ferryman]

Ferryman, you just don't want to understand at all! The above point means that the person filing the appeal is the defendant and not someone else.

The person filing the appeal is the appellant ....

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appellant