McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

I do, I might have answered jassi by pm, don't assume we talk just in the open.

Lol.. Dint you have the confidence to post..

[Eleanor]

Nothing the ECHR can say will have any consequences on the Madeleine case in my view. The McCanns lost their case very publicly in Portugal and when they attempted to claim that they had been cleared, the Portuguese Supreme Court issued a swift rebuke by way of a clarification to state otherwise.

Meanwhile I have been ghosted.  Wha( a very sorry tale..

[G-Unit]

I was looking for a meaning, not an opinion.

Level 3: 3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest,
namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly
settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest).

Level 3 cases come under the heading of nothing legally new or significant. They are dealt with EITHER by applying existing case law, by the parties agreeing to a friendly settlement or by being struck out.

So there are three possible outcomes, bolded.

[Mr Gray]

Level 3: 3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest,
namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly
settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest).

Level 3 cases come under the heading of nothing legally new or significant. They are dealt with EITHER by applying existing case law, by the parties agreeing to a friendly settlement or by being struck out.

So there are three possible outcomes, bolded.

the friendly settlement was offerred 12 months ago....I think its fair to say it didnt happen based  on the timeline. No evidence its been thrown out..which leaves...existing case law.

You can of course keep denying they inevitable. Interestingly its shown importance doea not relate to the importance of the case

[G-Unit]

the friendly settlement was offerred 12 months ago....I think its fair to say it didnt happen based  on the timeline. No evidence its been thrown out..which leaves...existing case law.

You can of course keep denying they inevitable. Interestingly its shown importance doea not relate to the importance of the case

We don't know what's going on; the various parties could still be offering arguments. All three possibilities are still on the table.

[Brietta]

We don't know what's going on; the various parties could still be offering arguments. All three possibilities are still on the table.

'Patience is a virtue' so we will just have to employ some as we wait to see.

[Mr Gray]

We don't know what's going on; the various parties could still be offering arguments. All three possibilities are still on the table.

You don't know what's on the table. Portugal has never agreed to a friendly settlement... It is ss I understand financial.
The point is the importance is not Re the importance of this case but about the legal points in question... Existing case law

[G-Unit]

You don't know what's on the table. Portugal has never agreed to a friendly settlement... It is ss I understand financial.
The point is the importance is not Re the importance of this case but about the legal points in question... Existing case law

If the ECHR apply their existing case law to the McCann case they may well apply it quite differently to how you think it applies. I think Brietta's right; we can only wait to see what happens.

[Mr Gray]

If the ECHR apply their existing case law to the McCann case they may well apply it quite differently to how you think it applies. I think Brietta's right; we can only wait to see what happens.

Why should they apply it differently.... Why do you suddenly have a problem with a poster offering an opinion based on facts.  The reasoning they apply is quite clear which I've posted several times

[G-Unit]

Why should they apply it differently.... Why do you suddenly have a problem with a poster offering an opinion based on facts.  The reasoning they apply is quite clear which I've posted several times

Your opinion of how the ECHR reason may be wrong.

[Mr Gray]

Your opinion of how the ECHR reason may be wrong.

I'm quoting their guidelines... They cannot be wrong

[G-Unit]

I'm quoting their guidelines... They cannot be wrong

We shall see.

[jassi]

Guidelines are not  the same as rules, else cases could be decided by a computer program.

Judges  decide if a particular case  meets certain  guideline criteria

[Mr Gray]

Guidelines are not  the same as rules, else cases could be decided by a computer program.

Judges  decide if a particular case  meets certain  guideline criteria

Lol... The judges have to follow the guidelines... And if you knew anything about them.. Which you obviously don't... You might understand

[jassi]

Lol... The judges have to follow the guidelines... And if you knew anything about them.. Which you obviously don't... You might understand

I don't need to know details - it's not me that taking guidelines into consideration when determining a verdict.
Nor is it you.