McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

Weird - I thought the case could only reopen on the emergence of fresh evidence, so is the judge calling into question the legality of the Portuguese re-investigation?

No they say it was reopened to recheck the evidence.  (Pedro do Carmo says something like that in the 10 year anniversary documentary.) https://youtu.be/UFuhRil4dvc?t=4635

[Mr Gray]

Weird - I thought the case could only reopen on the emergence of fresh evidence, so is the judge calling into question the legality of the Portuguese re-investigation?

The Portuguese claimed they had fresh  evidence

[G-Unit]

It confirms the investigation  was opened under 279/1...when you claimed, it was not possible

You need to look at your cite again.... It contains official statements.. But with added unnoficial comment... It looks to me as though your cite is unnoficial comment

The SC judges (not I) said that if the case were archived using 277/1 it couldn't be reopened;

In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

The translation was provided by Anne Guedes and the original document is shown. If you are questioning the translation feel free to give your version.

Why did you quote 279/1? What is the relevance?

[Robittybob1]

The Portuguese claimed they had fresh  evidence

Cite please?

[Mr Gray]

No they say it was reopened to recheck the evidence.  (Pedro do Carmo says something like that in the 10 year anniversary documentary.) https://youtu.be/UFuhRil4dvc?t=4635

I'm almost certain you are wrong

[Erngath]

The topic is the ECHR... Not spelling... Certain posters make continual speling and grammatical errors... I don't pointbthem out... It's pointless

If you did, you would be very busy with some posters.
I believe that as long as one can understand the gist of the post then spelling mistakes don't matter.
However I do find misspelling Madeleine's name rather irritating.

[Mr Gray]

Cite please?

Om posting from a phone... I'm sure another knowledgable poster will be along soon to help... As I remember it related to the tractor driver

[Alice Purjorick]

@Robbitybob & @Vertigo Swirls.
I have responded to the bit about quoting Judge Emilia several tmes. It has been scattered over this forum like bleedin' confetti for about two years.
How would I know what the judge is doing/has done?. She did it two years ago so one presumes some are a bit slow on the uptake if they have still not clocked it.

Article 279 under which the case was reopened if we believe the cite provided deals with (seemingly)
 "Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities under Portuguese Law"

[G-Unit]

No they say it was reopened to recheck the evidence.  (Pedro do Carmo says something like that in the 10 year anniversary documentary.) https://youtu.be/UFuhRil4dvc?t=4635

The Public Ministry determined the reopening of the inquest concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, according to article 279º, no 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following a proposal of the Judiciary Police and following the submission of new evidentiary elements which justify furthering the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm

[Mr Gray]

The Public Ministry determined the reopening of the inquest concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, according to article 279º, no 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following a proposal of the Judiciary Police and following the submission of new evidentiary elements which justify furthering the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm

So new evidence

[Venturi Swirl]

@Robbitybob & @Vertigo Swirls.
I have responded to the bit about quoting Judge Emilia several tmes. It has been scattered over this forum like bleedin' confetti for about two years.
How would I know what the judge is doing/has done?. She did it two years ago so one presumes some are a bit slow on the uptake if they have still not clocked it.

Article 279 under which the case was reopened if we believe the cite provided deals with (seemingly)
 "Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities under Portuguese Law"

Sorry for asking!

[Robittybob1]

@Robbitybob & @Vertigo Swirls.
I have responded to the bit about quoting Judge Emilia several tmes. It has been scattered over this forum like bleedin' confetti for about two years.
How would I know what the judge is doing/has done?. She did it two years ago so one presumes some are a bit slow on the uptake if they have still not clocked it.

Article 279 under which the case was reopened if we believe the cite provided deals with (seemingly)
 "Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities under Portuguese Law"

That is odd isn't it?

[Mr Gray]

That is odd isn't it?

Because it isn't true... Imo

[Robittybob1]

Because it isn't true... Imo

Carana might be able to sort this mess.

[G-Unit]

@Robbitybob & @Vertigo Swirls.
I have responded to the bit about quoting Judge Emilia several tmes. It has been scattered over this forum like bleedin' confetti for about two years.
How would I know what the judge is doing/has done?. She did it two years ago so one presumes some are a bit slow on the uptake if they have still not clocked it.

Article 279 under which the case was reopened if we believe the cite provided deals with (seemingly)
 "Criminal Liability of Corporate Entities under Portuguese Law"

Thank goodness for Anne Guedes (I could't find anything which made sense re 279);

Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation

1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm