McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

Or at any future time as that is all finished.

I'm not so sure about that.  Could the ECHR order a retrial?

[jassi]

No. They are unable to interfere with the decisions of nation courts, which stand whatever the ECHR decides.

[G-Unit]

The right not to have their reputations tarnished by opinionated accusations of guilt was the core matter of the trial, in addition to the damaging effect those accusations had on the continued search for Madeleine. IMO.

The McCanns had publicised their theory far and wide;

Page 63
Thus they opened the way for any person wishing equally to express an opinion on the case, contradicting their thesis.......
Page 67
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi. Note*

The opinion expressed by the respondent is sufficiently detailed in an intelligible and logical assessment of the facts and elements of evidence gathered in the investigation. Therefore the existence of a mere attack ad hominem to the persons of the appellants is not to be prefigured.

Note*  animus injuriandi (intention to offend) vs  animus informandi (intention to inform) and animus defendendi (intention to defend).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

[Robittybob1]

No. They are unable to interfere with the decisions of nation courts, which stand whatever the ECHR decides.

Well maybe Portugal will do it instead. 

[jassi]

Well maybe Portugal will do it instead.

No, they can't do that either. The Supreme Court is supreme.
The McCanns went down that route with their complaint about the Court, which was rapidly  thrown out .
They have run out of legal options in Portugal and are now in the Last Chance Saloon  of the ECHR

[stephen25000]

And hence the need to take it to the ECHR.

No need at all for the E.C.H.R.

It is in my opinion a diversionary tactic, and it will fail with even more humiliation, as a result.

Also, of course, they don't want to pay up what they owe.

Trouble being, what they owe is nothing to do with the E.C.H.R.

[misty]

Anyone care to comment on this paragraph found on p55 of the SC judgement?



Thereby followed the injunctions of the Recommendation R (2000) of January 19 2000 from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which constitutes a soft law instrument that called on States to provide for the possibility of reopening internal proceedings when the re-examination is the necessary means to repair the entitlement affected in the cases where violation is stated by the ECHR

[stephen25000]

Anyone care to comment on this paragraph found on p55 of the SC judgement?



Thereby followed the injunctions of the Recommendation R (2000) of January 19 2000 from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which constitutes a soft law instrument that called on States to provide for the possibility of reopening internal proceedings when the re-examination is the necessary means to repair the entitlement affected in the cases where violation is stated by the ECHR

Have you forgotten that the Supreme Court Judgement was made in regard to a case in the E.C.H.R. ?

[misty]

Have you forgotten that the Supreme Court Judgement was made in regard to a case in the E.C.H.R. ?

If you read the full judgement you will also see listed ECHR cases which favoured the right to a good reputation.
Anything to add to the bit about re-opening a case?

[jassi]

If this was proposed in 2000, States don't seem to be in any hurry to address the issue.

[slartibartfast]

Anyone care to comment on this paragraph found on p55 of the SC judgement?



Thereby followed the injunctions of the Recommendation R (2000) of January 19 2000 from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which constitutes a soft law instrument that called on States to provide for the possibility of reopening internal proceedings when the re-examination is the necessary means to repair the entitlement affected in the cases where violation is stated by the ECHR

You missed...

I.    Invites, in the light of these considerations the Contracting Parties to ensure that there exist at national level adequate possibilities to achieve, as far as possible, restitutio in integrum;

II.   Encourages the Contracting Parties, in particular, to examine their national legal systems with a view to ensuring that there exist adequate possibilities of re-examination of the case, including reopening of proceedings, in instances where the Court has found a violation of the Convention, especially where:

(i) the injured party continues to suffer very serious negative consequences because of the outcome of the domestic decision at issue, which are not adequately remedied by the just satisfaction and cannot be rectified except by re-examination or reopening, and

(ii) the judgment of the Court leads to the conclusion that

(a) the impugned domestic decision is on the merits contrary to the Convention, or

(b) the violation found is based on procedural errors or shortcomings of such gravity that a serious doubt is cast on the outcome of the domestic proceedings complained of.

[misty]

If this was proposed in 2000, States don't seem to be in any hurry to address the issue.

That's why I've raised it as the SC wouldn't have included that if it wasn't relevant. Is it now in the small print somewhere? I cannot see member states wanting to foot enormous bills every time their highest court gets something wrong.

[sadie]

What ever you say, it was not a garden it was a complex. [in a foreign country]

Oh they do have gardens in  foreign countries

Yep, it was a sort of complex ... but that was contained in what felt like a back garden.   Like a very rich persons own back garden.   And of course it was adjoining the backs of the apartments, where a back garden usually is.   

Despite all it contained, it had a very cozy feel to it and seemed quite small.  Maybe this was because the tennis courts were hidden around the back of the Tapas Bar  and completely out of sight as you entered the garden.

I guess that architect/owner Robin Crosland designed it ... and he made a damned good job of it.   Talk about getting a quart out of a pint pot !!

Do try and go there and have a look Kizzy

[sadie]

Indeed, hardly a garden when the only source of access was through a reception area off a public road  some 50 metres or more away from the apartment. More like a public park area.

Nothing like a public park; it was for the use of guests, although staff used it too at times.  The reception area was to keep the public out.    Very compact and felt very cozy surprisingly

Go and have a look yourself.   See what you think then.

[misty]

Page 55
… On the national instances' side there is a clear tendency to secondarily favour freedom of expression and to overestimate the right to honour.

This has caused Portugal to be condemned by the ECHR for violation of art. 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. the cases Lopes Gomes da Silva vs Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues vs Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento vs Portugal (2005). Almeida Azevedo vs Portugal (2007), Colaço Mestre vs Portugal (2007), Leonel Azevedo vs Portugal (2008), Medipress Sociedade Jornalistica. Lda. Vs Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes vs Portugal (2017)).

We observe, in this respect, that in the cases in which the Portuguese State would be condemned by the ECHR for violation of Convention norms, a request of review can be lodged to the Court that issued the decision to re-examine (cf. Art. 449°-1g of the CPP introduced by Law n° 48/ 2007, of 29/8, and art. 771°-f of the CPC, introduced by D.L n°303/2007 of 24/8 - art. 696°-f of the NCPC-)