McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

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

So contrary to your posts... The investigation can be Re opened with new evidence.... As I have already posted today

[Robittybob1]

So contrary to your posts... The investigation can be Re opened with new evidence.... As I have already posted today

Only " Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired" and I have not seen you prove that that clause was satisfied as yet.

[Mr Gray]

Only " Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired" and I have not seen you prove that that clause was satisfied as yet.

Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something  of a clue that the conditions  have been met

[Alice Purjorick]

The reports down the years seem to blow hot and cold.

'He added that like the British police, Mr and Mrs McCann want the case to be reopened but it is 'up to the Portuguese authorities'.
But their hopes were dashed just hours later when Pedro do Carmo, deputy head of the criminal police department, said: 'There are no new elements at the moment that would allow for the reopening of the inquiry.'
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135551/Madeleine-McCann-latest-news-Portuguese-police-refuse-open-case.html

So what happened between April 2012 and October 2013?

[Mr Gray]

The reports down the years seem to blow hot and cold.

'He added that like the British police, Mr and Mrs McCann want the case to be reopened but it is 'up to the Portuguese authorities'.
But their hopes were dashed just hours later when Pedro do Carmo, deputy head of the criminal police department, said: 'There are no new elements at the moment that would allow for the reopening of the inquiry.'
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135551/Madeleine-McCann-latest-news-Portuguese-police-refuse-open-case.html

So what happened between April 2012 and October 2013?

IMO... The PJ made sure they found some... In order, to satisfy SY

[Robittybob1]

Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something  of a clue that the conditions  have been met

No you have not.  "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."

That clause defines what happens once the period expires.  You don't even know how long that period is.

[Mr Gray]

No you have not.  "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."

That clause defines what happens once the period expires.  You don't even know how long that period is.

Gunit said the case could not be reopened under 279/1...I said it could... And have been priven right... Gunit is wrong... The case can be reopened... And has been reopened

[Brietta]

Snip
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfills the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note. The PJ goes on to point out that, in common with all cases of missing children, despite the formal closure of the inquiry, "he continued to be attentive to any information that would make it possible to know the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which their disappearance and the identity of their author (s) ".
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.

The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207

Madeleine's case was reopened "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."
Public Ministry reopens investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, 24 October 2013
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm

The PJ reinstated the investigation into Madeleine's abduction (rapture).  Some may not wish to recognise that is the case but it categorically is.

[G-Unit]

Gunit said the case could not be Re opened under 279/1.....I said it could and have been proven right...the fact that the case has been re-opened is something  of a clue that the conditions  have been met

I don't know what you're reading, but I know it's not what I have written. At no point, ever, at all, did I say that the investigation couldn't be reopened under 279/1.

[Robittybob1]

Gunit said the case could not be reopened under 279/1...I said it could... And have been priven right... Gunit is wrong... The case can be reopened... And has been reopened

Yes but only if the defined period has expired.  Was that time period satisfied?
What clause was used to reopen the case?  Was it 279/1?  I don't think so.

[Mr Gray]

Yes but only if the defined period has expired.  Was that time period satisfied?
What clause was used to reopen the case?  Was it 279/1?  I don't think so.

Brietta posted an official PJ release quoting 279/1

[Robittybob1]

Brietta posted an official PJ release quoting 279/1

Yes and it has been pointed out that that could well be a typo.

[Mr Gray]

In it's rejection of the request for annulment of it's ruling the SC made it's position on the archiving dispatch clear again;

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

If 277/1 was the correct article as the McCann team argued, the investigation couldn't have been reopened;

The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.

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
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

your post

[Mr Gray]

Yes and it has been pointed out that that could well be a typo.

that is ridiculous...perhaps the AG played a prank...it is atotally ridiculous suggestion

[Robittybob1]

your post

From the link "the investigation can be reopened if new elements of evidence arise invalidating the grounds called upon by the Public Ministry in the filing dispatch (art. 279 of the CPP)."