McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

that is ridiculous...perhaps the AG played a prank...it is atotally ridiculous suggestion

We don't know who did the typo so it is not ridiculous.

[G-Unit]

your post

Does it mention 279/1?

[G-Unit]

Yes but only if the defined period has expired.  Was that time period satisfied?
What clause was used to reopen the case?  Was it 279/1?  I don't think so.

The case was archived quoting Article 277/1
The SC said 277/2 was the correct Article.
It was reopened using 279/1

[Robittybob1]

The case was archived quoting Article 277/1
The SC said 277/2 was the correct Article.
It was reopened using 279/1

The 277 part details how cases can be archived but the 279 part is for the reopening.

Who says "It was reopened using 279/1"  what report?

[Mr Gray]

Does it mention 279/1?

In it's rejection of the request for annulment of it's ruling the SC made it's position on the archiving dispatch clear again;

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

If 277/1 was the correct article as the McCann team argued, the investigation couldn't have been reopened;



thats your post...yesit mentions 277/1

[Robittybob1]

277/1 is not the same as 279/1

[Alice Purjorick]

IMO... The PJ made sure they found some... In order, to satisfy SY

My theory is the same meat but different gravy.

[Alice Purjorick]

The 277 part details how cases can be archived but the 279 part is for the reopening.

Who says "It was reopened using 279/1"  what report?

Try looking at posts  #1273 & # 1274 above.

[G-Unit]

In it's rejection of the request for annulment of it's ruling the SC made it's position on the archiving dispatch clear again;

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

If 277/1 was the correct article as the McCann team argued, the investigation couldn't have been reopened;



thats your post...yesit mentions 277/1

Of course it does. What are you on? You accused me of mentioning 279/1!!!!!

[Mr Gray]

Of course it does. What are you on? You accused me of mentioning 279/1!!!!!

So even if it's archived under 277/1....it can still be reopened

[G-Unit]

So even if it's archived under 277/1....it can still be reopened

According to the SC judges it can't, which supports their argument that it wasn't archived under 277/1, but under 277/2.

I take it you've now realised your mistake about these articles and what I did or did not say?

[Mr Gray]

According to the SC judges it can't, which supports their argument that it wasn't archived under 277/1, but under 277/2.

I take it you've now realised your mistake about these articles and what I did or did not say?

Yes.. What you said is, that if the case is archived under 277/1...it cannot be re-opened... It obviously  can as this case has

[Carana]

Only " Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired" and I have not seen you prove that that clause was satisfied as yet.

Hang on, there are other bits of legal bla, in which a legal ruling can be contested with a specific number of days and which could prolong the inquiry phase while that other evidence is considered. IMO as no time to hunt back.

For example, let's say the legal ruling is to charge X. X finds that the prosecutor had ignored a plane ticket, hotel receipt that proves his alibi. That new info then has to be checked out and temporarily suspends the ruling.

[G-Unit]

Yes.. What you said is, that if the case is archived under 277/1...it cannot be re-opened... It obviously  can as this case has

Which means that it wasn't archived under 277/1, it was archived, as the SC judges argued, under 277/2.

 

[G-Unit]

Hang on, there are other bits of legal bla, in which a legal ruling can be contested with a specific number of days and which could prolong the inquiry phase while that other evidence is considered. IMO as no time to hunt back.

For example, let's say the legal ruling is to charge X. X finds that the prosecutor had ignored a plane ticket, hotel receipt that proves his alibi. That new info then has to be checked out and temporarily suspends the ruling.

Twenty days were quoted at the time imo.