McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

Leap of faith there,is it admissible?

You just need to look at the admissibility criteria... It's not rocket science... It's quite simple.  Its admissible

[barrier]

You just need to look at the admissibility criteria... It's not rocket science... It's quite simple.  Its admissible

There's a real court,then there's the court of opinion,unless you've actually seen the application in all its glory you don't know.

[G-Unit]

Youve managed to get just about everything wrong there so I will correct you and it makes interesting reading.

first 309 is not the amount of times proved wrong...its the total number of judgements

Of 309 judgeemnts only 13 found portugal to have made no violation...thats 13 out of 309...what a pathetic record portugal has...one of the worst in the table and less tahn Russia.

What that indicates is that portugals SC are routinely not administering ECHR law correctly...their record is appalling. Claims that the SC understand ECHR Law are therefore not backed by evidence...in gact the evidence shows the reverse.

Only you could look at that table and decide that Portugal's record is 'one of the worst in the table'. 

[Eleanor]

Only you could look at that table and decide that Portugal's record is 'one of the worst in the table'. 

But it actually is.

[Mr Gray]

Only you could look at that table and decide that Portugal's record is 'one of the worst in the table'. 

Probably because I have a background in maths
309 judgements  ..13 showing no violation... That's about 4 %...lower than Russia and one of the lowest in the table.
I've provided evidence to support my claim... you respond with a sniping response backed by no evidence ..

Where is your evidence to show I'm wrong

Portugal 4%...UK about 30%...you would have to be blind not to understand

[Mr Gray]

There's a real court,then there's the court of opinion,unless you've actually seen the application in all its glory you don't know.

It's a matter of understanding the facts then it's easy to extrapolate ...it is for me at least.
Look at the SC judgement and the appeal against the SC judgement... Two points stand out... Defamation and the presumption of innocence... Both points the Echr can rule on

[barrier]

It's a matter of understanding the facts then it's easy to extrapolate ...it is for me at least.
Look at the SC judgement and the appeal against the SC judgement... Two points stand out... Defamation and the presumption of innocence... Both points the Echr can rule on

"Can" being the qualifier.

[Mr Gray]

"Can" being the qualifier.

If it's admissible... Which it has to be... Imo... They have to rule on it

[Eleanor]

"Can" being the qualifier.

It either is or it isn't.  "Can"  doesn't come into it.

[barrier]

It either is or it isn't.  "Can"  doesn't come into it.

Nope,read what is written,Davel said they (echr) "can" adjudicate on articles 8 and 10,whether they will is another matter.

[G-Unit]

Probably because I have a background in maths
309 judgements  ..13 showing no violation... That's about 4 %...lower than Russia and one of the lowest in the table.
I've provided evidence to support my claim... you respond with a sniping response backed by no evidence ..

Where is your evidence to show I'm wrong

Portugal 4%...UK about 30%...you would have to be blind not to understand

My reading of it is that UK lawyers are more likely to make unfounded applications than Portuguese lawyers.

[Mr Gray]

Nope,read what is written,Davel said they (echr) "can" adjudicate on articles 8 and 10,whether they will is another matter.

Why the semantics.... If the case is admitted... Can you point out one reason why it shouldn't... Then they will rule on it.

I used the word... Can... In that context because if the mccanns had complained about other points in the judgements they may be points the ECHR cannot rule on..

[Mr Gray]

My reading of it is that UK lawyers are more likely to make unfounded applications than Portuguese lawyers.

If the applications have no merit they would not be accepted
The fact is that in 309 cases that went to judgement it was found there was no violation in only 13 cases.... That means there was a violation in 296 cases.  That means the portugues court was wrong in 296 cases out of 309

It's clear that the Portuguese courts, are failing to correctly apply ECHR... they are actually one of the worst

[G-Unit]

If the applications have no merit they would not be accepted
The fact is that in 309 cases that went to judgement it was found there was no violation in only 13 cases.... That means there was a violation in 296 cases.  That means the portugues court was wrong in 296 cases out of 309

It's clear that the Portuguese courts, are failing to correctly apply ECHR... they are actually one of the worst

So 75% of cases against Portugal were upheld; a result similar to Norway, France, Italy, Finland and Belgium.

The UK and Russia seem to be different with 58% and 93% respectively.

[Mr Gray]

So 75% of cases against Portugal were upheld; a result similar to Norway, France, Italy, Finland and Belgium.

The UK and Russia seem to be different with 58% and 93% respectively.

where does that figure come from....what do you mean by upheld......i dont think you understand  the  table at all...you seem totally confused