McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[slartibartfast]

I have shown attempts to overturn... Showing it is an option

Unless you can show an actual overturning it isn’t a workable option.

[slartibartfast]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chahal_v._United_Kingdom

Interim Measures again.

[slartibartfast]

What you cannot deny is that people go to the ECHR to get domestic judgents overturned.. As Charlie Gards, parents, did.... Interim measures were granted until the case, was heard, and the UK decision to deport overturned

In cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm.

[slartibartfast]

so you think Charles parents merely requested interim measures and not a judgement... you have a closed mind IMO... We know that the case referred to by Brietta may seek a review of the initial judgement... No interim measures there

They were trying to stop something happening, not something that had already happened. The McCanns sued GA and failed, there is nothing outstanding, they haven’t suffered significant loss from failing. There is no imminent risk of irreparable harm.

[slartibartfast]

You are, wrong about Charlie... They were trying to stop something  that had happened. The court had ruled the doctors had the right to cease life support and that the parents had no right to remove him from the hospital.  The parents, went to the ECHR to get the judgement overturned.

They went to the ECHR because he was going to die.

[Mr Gray]

They went to the ECHR because he was going to die.

They went to the ECHR so they could overule the UK courts decision to cease life support....

[slartibartfast]

They went to the ECHR so they could overule the UK courts decision to cease life support....

My final word...he was at imminent risk of irreparable harm.

[Alice Purjorick]

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf


The ruling by the ECtHR in the case of Steel and Morris v UK was supposed to have been a landmark case with far reaching repercussions and was fanfared as such ........ it never happened.


p.s yes I have read the document linked 

[G-Unit]

I agree... so are , a lot of people... But that was not the reason an application to the, ECHR was made... It was not made to provide a temporary  solution... It was made to overule the UK courts, and allow charlie to travel...

It failed. It was ruled inadmissible by the ECHR.

[G-Unit]

but their intention was to overule the UK court....I dont think anyone can argue with that

Intentions which were thwarted.

[G-Unit]

yet their lawyers must ahve thought it possible...and the judges considered it...so they must ahve thought it possible

What it achieved was the delay in turning off the life support. Which judges considered what?

[G-Unit]

it failed in what it wanted to achieve....
In its decision in the case of Gard and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 39793/17)
today the European Court of Human Rights has by a majority endorsed in substance the approach by
the domestic courts and thus declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.
Consequently, the Court also considered that it was appropriate to lift the interim measure under
Rule 39 of its Rules of Court.
The case concerned Charlie Gard, a baby suffering from a rare and fatal genetic disease. In February
2017, the treating hospital sought a declaration from the domestic courts as to whether it would be
lawful to withdraw artificial ventilation and provide Charlie with palliative care. Charlie’s parents also
asked the courts to consider whether it would be in the best interests of their son to undergo
experimental treatment in the U.S.A.. The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the
hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely that Charlie would suffer
significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of
improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.
In the proceedings before the European Court, Charlie’s parents argued – on their own behalf and
that of their son – under Article 2 (right to life) that the hospital has blocked access to life sustaining
treatment (in the U.S.A.) for Charlie and under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that, as a
result, he is unlawfully deprived of his liberty. They further alleged under Articles 6 (right to a fair
trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that the domestic court decisions amounted
to an unfair and disproportionate interference in their parental rights.
The Court bore in mind the considerable room for manoeuvre (“wide margin of appreciation”) left to
the authorities in the sphere concerning access to experimental medication for the terminally ill and
in cases raising sensitive moral and ethical issues, reiterating that it was not for the Court to
substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities. From this perspective, the Court gave
weight to the fact that a domestic legal framework – compatible with the Convention – was available
governing both access to experimental medication as well as withdrawal of life sustaining treatment.
Furthermore, the domestic court decisions had been meticulous, thorough and reviewed at three
levels of jurisdiction with clear and extensive reasoning giving relevant and sufficient support for
their conclusions; the domestic courts had direct contact with all those concerned (notably, they had
heard from all the medical experts involved in the treatment as well as experts instructed by the
applicants, from Charlie’s parents themselves and from an independent professional appointed as
the child’s guardian, had received expert reports from other doctors of international standing in the
field and had visited the hospital); it was appropriate for the hospital to approach the courts in the
UK in the event of doubts as to the best decision to take; and, lastly, the domestic courts had
concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was
being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment
with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.
The full text of this decision will be available tomorrow on the Court’s website

I don't know what your point is.

[Robittybob1]

as my reply has been deleted...though it broke no forum rules...I cannot respond

You agreed to have your posts deleted.  And you did it again http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10309.msg497933#msg497933.

[Mr Gray]

Charlie Gards parents applied to have such an order overturned.. The fact they applied to do this suggests it is possible

[G-Unit]

Charlie Gards parents applied to have such an order overturned.. The fact they applied to do this suggests it is possible

Please provide a cite for this application.