McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Angelo222]

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[Angelo222]

Nothing to do with the SC either. This case if submitted/approved/judged is the McCanns vs Portugal. They will have to prove Portugal didn’t consider their human rights and it caused them significant damage. If either of those fail, the fat lady will sing.

In my opinion it is merely a delaying tactic anyway and a cheap way to attract more publicity.

[slartibartfast]

the ECHR will review the judgement made by the SC...so it is to do with the SC

That would be entirely to do with a defence from Portugal and not something specified in a complaint.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion it is merely a delaying tactic anyway and a cheap way to attract more publicity.

imo you are wrong

[stephen25000]

In my opinion it is merely a delaying tactic anyway and a cheap way to attract more publicity.

I concur.

[Mr Gray]

its article 8 .....not 10...my mistake...Im doing a 100 other things at the moment

https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

[Mr Gray]

I concur.

and again imo you are wrong

[slartibartfast]

its article 8 .....not 10...my mistake...Im doing a 100 other things at the moment

You must have been thinking of the one that made them fail at the SC?

[Angelo222]

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[Mr Gray]

im off out now...its poointless continuing this argument...we will hopefully soon know if the case is to be accepted as Im sure it will...and may also then have more details of the actual complaint

[Mr Gray]

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/11/01/the-right-to-reputation-under-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

its article 8...you need to read the report

[Angelo222]

The relevant part in this case is "... except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime..."

In my view the McCanns haven't a leg to stand on.

[Angelo222]

im off out now...its poointless continuing this argument...we will hopefully soon know if the case is to be accepted as Im sure it will...and may also then have more details of the actual complaint

So soon?  Just when I'm getting warmed up.

[Mr Gray]

The relevant part in this case is "... except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime..."

In my view the McCanns haven't a leg to stand on.

thats article 10...not 8.....you are quoting the wrong article

ase of Pfeifer v. Austria, the right to protection of reputation was established as a Convention right under art. 8 ECHR. From Pfeifer: “a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to respect for private life”.

[stephen25000]

thats article 10...not 8.....you are quoting the wrong article

ase of Pfeifer v. Austria, the right to protection of reputation was established as a Convention right under art. 8 ECHR. From Pfeifer: “a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to respect for private life”.

Well, I suggest they don't try that, as they exposed their lives, including private lives, to the media.