McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

One thing I've oft wondered on how many supposed violations can one go to the echr for or is it limited to one.
eg: suppose its article 8,that is being contested is it this they are limited to once an application is made?

Only violations which have already been raised in the national courts can be submitted, particularly those raised in the highest court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf

So Duarte repeats to the Supreme Court her argument which the judge of the first instance accepted; that Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted by his membership of the PJ, albeit retired. Therefore, she says, he breached Article 6/2.
In support of her claim she quotes two cases. Karaman v Germany and Allen v UK.

[Mr Gray]

Only violations which have already been raised in the national courts can be submitted, particularly those raised in the highest court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf

So Duarte repeats to the Supreme Court her argument which the judge of the first instance accepted; that Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted by his membership of the PJ, albeit retired. Therefore, she says, he breached Article 6/2.
In support of her claim she quotes two cases. Karaman v Germany and Allen v UK.

The McCann's also raised the points of presumption of innocence and right to reputation

[barrier]

Only violations which have already been raised in the national courts can be submitted, particularly those raised in the highest court.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf

So Duarte repeats to the Supreme Court her argument which the judge of the first instance accepted; that Amaral's freedom of expression was restricted by his membership of the PJ, albeit retired. Therefore, she says, he breached Article 6/2.
In support of her claim she quotes two cases. Karaman v Germany and Allen v UK.

Just been reading the Karaman v G,came across this.

By virtue of that principle, no measures effectively amounting to a penalty may be taken against a defendant without his guilt having been established beforehand at a proper trial.The principle further requires that guilt be proved according to law before it can be held against the person concerned.

How were Amaral's assets frozen with out a trial with the presumption of innocence.
What penalty was taken against the McCanns.

[G-Unit]

Just been reading the Karaman v G,came across this.

By virtue of that principle, no measures effectively amounting to a penalty may be taken against a defendant without his guilt having been established beforehand at a proper trial.The principle further requires that guilt be proved according to law before it can be held against the person concerned.

How were Amaral's assets frozen with out a trial with the presumption of innocence.
What penalty was taken against the McCanns.

I don't know the law in Portugal, but it's usual in the UK to take out insurance when requesting that someone's assets be frozen. Just in case an innocent person is being deprived. In this case that happened and it may be that talk of 'compensation' having to be paid to Amaral could well be connected to this imo.

[barrier]

I don't know the law in Portugal, but it's usual in the UK to take out insurance when requesting that someone's assets be frozen. Just in case an innocent person is being deprived. In this case that happened and it may be that talk of 'compensation' having to be paid to Amaral could well be connected to this imo.

That would make sense,with no one fully explaining the compensation bit.

[G-Unit]

That would make sense,with on one fully explaining the compensation bit.

It makes sense to me. You surely can't freeze someone's assets for years without reason and not compensate them?  Now that would be anti-justice.

[Eleanor]

Amaral owed a great deal of money to other people which he had made no effort to repay prior to the case with The McCanns.

The Portuguese Court froze Amaral's assets.

[G-Unit]

Amaral owed a great deal of money to other people which he had made no effort to repay prior to the case with The McCanns.

The Portuguese Court froze Amaral's assets.

The McCann's lawyer requested the injunction which froze Amaral's assets. Courts grant injunctions if they are requested. I can only comment as to the situation under UK law;

When, applying for a Freezing Order or Freezing Injunction, an Applicant is normally required to give what is called an “undertaking in damages” to compensate a Respondent if it is later shown that the Applicant was not entitled to the injunctive relief sought. The undertaking itself is given to the Court and not the Respondent. Even where there is no express undertaking, there is always an implied undertaking.
https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_services/fraud-asset-recovery/freezing-order/further-information-freezing/applications-to-discharge-a-freezing-order-8-important-cons.html

[barrier]

The McCann's lawyer requested the injunction which froze Amaral's assets. Courts grant injunctions if they are requested. I can only comment as to the situation under UK law;

When, applying for a Freezing Order or Freezing Injunction, an Applicant is normally required to give what is called an “undertaking in damages” to compensate a Respondent if it is later shown that the Applicant was not entitled to the injunctive relief sought. The undertaking itself is given to the Court and not the Respondent. Even where there is no express undertaking, there is always an implied undertaking.
https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_services/fraud-asset-recovery/freezing-order/further-information-freezing/applications-to-discharge-a-freezing-order-8-important-cons.html

Found this,whether it applies I know not.

https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_interim_and_precautionary_measures-78-gi-en.do?member=1

For interim injunctions the applicant is normally required to give a “cross-undertaking in damages” - a promise to compensate the respondent for any losses caused by the injunction if it subsequently turns out that it should not have been granted (e.g. because the applicant loses at trial).

[Robittybob1]

It makes sense to me. You surely can't freeze someone's assets for years without reason and not compensate them?  Now that would be anti-justice.

It is the court that orders the assets frozen, so who needs to take out the insurance?

[jassi]

It is the court that orders the assets frozen, so who needs to take out the insurance?

The person who requested the sequestration. The courts don't initiate these things, only grant them.

[Robittybob1]

The person who requested the sequestration. The courts don't initiate these things, only grant them.

I understand that in the case of an injunction.
Wikipedia definition of injunction:

 An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. ... They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction."

Did the McCanns take out an injunction to stop Amaral selling his book?

[jassi]

I think their efforts were aimed at preventing anyone from publishing the book in the first place, which is probably why it was made available on line.

[G-Unit]

I understand that in the case of an injunction.
Wikipedia definition of injunction:

 An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. ... They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction."

Did the McCanns take out an injunction to stop Amaral selling his book?

They took two injunctions in 2009. One was to ban the book; that was dismissed on appeal. They also took out a freezing injunction to stop him spending his money because they wanted it to be there to pay them when they won their case. Rather amusingly, in 2010 Mitchell said;

"Kate and Gerry McCann are due to fly to Lisbon Monday afternoon and plan to attend the full hearing, which starts Tuesday and is expected to last three or four days. A verdict is likely soon after the conclusion, possibly by the end of next week, Mitchell said."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kGTerwYbAdUJ:www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/11/portugal.britain.madeleine.mccann/index.html+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Of course the judgement wasn't delivered until April 2015, and was finally settled by the SC in January 2017. So the asset freezing lasted a long long time; 8 years.

[jassi]

I suppose 8 years' interest on however much was frozen could  be quite substantial.
I wonder if its been paid yet.