From Google translate of the judgement. Anne Guedes translation is pretty similar:
VI. Judge over the rest of unfounded the claims made in the action attached by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and same acquit the defendants.
VII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the attached action against TVI defendant - INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, the same acquitting the defendant.
VII is clear enough. I leave it to the “experts” to have a dreadfully esoteric discussion about what VI means but it is fairly obvious.
But none of it was about the money. Apparently the only person in Portugal who cannot talk about and support Sr Amaral’s thesis is he. The entire nation and it’s dog seemingly can:
The prohibitions required under paragraphs d), e) and f) of action of petitionary attached, beyond the scope of this action and are Disproportionate. It is not illegal to retain the support of the thesis que Madeleine McCann died a smaller apartment in Praia da Luz and his body was hidden by parents. The scope of action is the claim by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and documentary, in concrete terms in Which it did, this same thesis.
__________________________
(I see that in fact the claims against TV1 were dropped - mainly because they provided a disclaimer in 44 and 45 before broadcast which provided them with a good defence - well spotted Alice)
So Alice - are you saying that the snipped part of the judgement above, and in particular
VI fully supports your view that the other three defendants (GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and TV1)
all got off scott free?