McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Carana]

No you have not.  "Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation

1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order."

That clause defines what happens once the period expires.  You don't even know how long that period is.

I'll post the relevant articles from the 2007 CCP (the 2000 one was prior to the September arguido interviews, but might have been the one in force at the time of any trial within a relatively short time) and you can all find your favourite translator.

Artigo 277.o
Arquivamento do inquérito
1 — O Ministério Público procede, por despacho, ao arquivamento do inquérito, logo que tiver recolhido prova bastante de se não ter verificado crime, de o arguido não o ter praticado a qualquer título ou de ser legalmente inadmissível o procedimento.
2 — O inquérito é igualmente arquivado se não tiver sido possível ao Ministério Público obter indícios suficientes da verificação de crime ou de quem foram os agentes.
68
3 — O despacho de arquivamento é comunicado ao arguido, ao assistente, ao denunciante com faculdade de se constituir assistente e a quem tenha manifestado o propósito de deduzir pedido de indemnização civil nos termos do artigo 75.o, bem como ao respectivo defensor ou advogado.
4 — As comunicações a que se refere o número anterior efectuam-se:
a) Por notificação mediante contacto pessoal ou via postal registada ao assistente e ao arguido, excepto se estes tiverem indicado um local determinado para efeitos de notificação por via postal simples, nos termos dos n.os 5 e 6 do artigo 145.o, do n.o 2 e da alínea c) do n.o 3 do artigo 196.o, e não tenham entretanto indicado uma outra, através de requerimento entregue ou remetido por via postal registada à secretaria onde os autos se encontrarem a correr nesse momento;
b) Por editais, se o arguido não tiver defensor nomeado ou advogado constituído e não for possível a sua notificação mediante contacto pessoal, via postal registada ou simples, nos termos previstos na alínea anterior;
c) Por notificação mediante via postal simples ao denunciante com a faculdade de se constituir assistente e a quem tenha manifestado o propósito de deduzir pedido de indemnização civil;
d) Por notificação mediante via postal simples sempre que o inquérito não correr contra pessoa determinada.
5 — Nos casos previstos no n.o 1, sempre que se verificar que existiu por parte de quem denunciou ou exerceu um alegado direito de queixa, uma utilização abusiva do processo, o tribunal condena -o no pagamento de uma soma entre 6 UC e 20 UC, sem prejuízo do apuramento de responsabilidade penal.

Artigo 278.o
Intervencão hierárquica
1 — No prazo de 20 dias a contar da data em que a abertura de instrução já não puder ser requerida, o imediato superior hierárquico do magistrado do Ministério Público pode, por sua iniciativa ou a requerimento do assistente ou do denunciante com a faculdade de se constituir assistente, determinar que seja formulada acusação ou que as investigações prossigam, indicando, neste caso, as diligências a efectuar e o prazo para o seu cumprimento.
2 — O assistente e o denunciante com a faculdade de se constituir assistente podem, se optarem por não requerer a abertura da instrução, suscitar a intervenção hierárquica, ao abrigo do número anterior, no prazo previsto para aquele requerimento.

Artigo 279.o
Reabertura do inquérito
1 — Esgotado o prazo a que se refere o artigo anterior, o inquérito só pode ser reaberto se surgirem novos elementos de prova que invalidem os fundamentos invocados pelo Ministério Público no despacho de arquivamento.
2 — Do despacho do Ministério Público que deferir ou recusar a reabertura do inquérito há reclamação para o superior hierárquico imediato.

[Carana]

Just a little caveat, we're looking at the CCPs in force in 2007. The case was eventually reopened in 2013, by which time the code may well have changed. The civil one changes faster than you can blink.

ETA: Just checked the August 2014 versionn - same wording for 277-279.

[slartibartfast]

The point us that they are making a decision on a criminal ruling when the McCann's have never had the opportunity ti contest the evidence against them in which the ruling was made

They have never challenged it IMO.

[Carana]

They have never challenged it IMO.

How could they? They weren't allowed to in the civil trial.

Whether they agreed with all the details in the legal summary or not, the bottom line was that there was no evidence that any of the arguidos had committed an as-yet undetermined crime against this little girl.

That left them free to pore over the files and try to find ways to get the case reviewed and hopefully reopened - which has now happened.

[Alice Purjorick]

This seems so alien to those who've followed English media libel trials, but the system is totally different.

Yeah but our libel laws are considered "third world" in large parts of the west.
The McCann v Amaral case ceased to be a libel trial early doors.
Bearing in mind it was a 1.2MM writ, most of it was thrown out on the first pass. The final judgement in the court of first instance came down to whether Sr Amaral, as a former employee of the state, remained bound by the same rules in retirement as he was when in employment. If so and he had profited by bucking those rules the judge had to decide how the balance be redressed and rule on it, to whit pay the dosh plus interest to the plaintiff. Which is what she ordered that judgment was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

Yeah but our libel laws are considered "third world" in large parts of the west.
The McCann v Amaral case ceased to be a libel trial early doors.
Bearing in mind it was a 1.2MM writ, most of it was thrown out on the first pass. The final judgement in the court of first instance came down to whether Sr Amaral, as a former employee of the state, remained bound by the same rules in retirement as he was when in employment. If so and he had profited by bucking those rules the judge had to decide how the balance be redressed and rule on it, to whit pay the dosh plus interest to the plaintiff. Which is what she ordered that judgment was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral.

Amarals book would be considered libel in most of the US under libel per se... ..looking at other cases on the ECHR website I think it should have been deemed libellous in Portugal.... Perhaps it will be

[Robittybob1]

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.

Whatever it means, but I'd say if there is a condition to be met, that condition has to be met before that clause will apply.

[Alice Purjorick]

Amarals book would be considered libel in most of the US under libel per se... ..looking at other cases on the ECHR website I think it should have been deemed libellous in Portugal.... Perhaps it will be

So you keep saying.
 

[Mr Gray]

Whatever it means, but I'd say if there is a condition to be met, that condition has to be met before that clause will apply.

the most important point is taht the case can be reopened when archived under 277/1 wqhich is contrary to what gunit was claiming.......it therefore also nullifies gunits calim taht closure had to be changed to 277/2 for taht raeson.

So the question then is...why did the SC make the change

[G-Unit]

I can see that disputing the facts of the case would belong to a criminal trial, and that the SC was limiting itself to the legal side, but I still don't see how, on the basis of the entire contents of the legal summary, taken as a whole, they can take it upon themselves to change what now appears to be a key point relating to a criminal ruling due to an interpretation of one phrase, while examing the merits of a civil case.

The Supreme Court has the power to overrule the Attorney General himself, so it certainly has the power to correct a legal mistake by a public prosecutor.

In England for example;

Prince Charles letters: attorney general acted unlawfully, say senior judges
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/12/attorney-general-unlawful-prince-charles-letters

The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme court and lost again.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/supreme-court-order-r-on-the-application-of-evans-v-attorney-general.html

[Robittybob1]

Yeah but our libel laws are considered "third world" in large parts of the west.
The McCann v Amaral case ceased to be a libel trial early doors.
Bearing in mind it was a 1.2MM writ, most of it was thrown out on the first pass. The final judgement in the court of first instance came down to whether Sr Amaral, as a former employee of the state, remained bound by the same rules in retirement as he was when in employment. If so and he had profited by bucking those rules the judge had to decide how the balance be redressed and rule on it, to whit pay the dosh plus interest to the plaintiff. Which is what she ordered that judgment was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral.

Did you miss the word but in your last sentence?
"Which is what she ordered [BUT] that judgement was subsequently appealed successfully by Sr Amaral."

[Robittybob1]

the most important point is taht the case can be reopened when archived under 277/1 wqhich is contrary to what gunit was claiming.......it therefore also nullifies gunits calim taht closure had to be changed to 277/2 for taht raeson.

So the question then is...why did the SC make the change

Are you left handed?

[Mr Gray]

The Supreme Court has the power to overrule the Attorney General himself, so it certainly has the power to correct a legal mistake by a public prosecutor.

In England for example;

Prince Charles letters: attorney general acted unlawfully, say senior judges
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/12/attorney-general-unlawful-prince-charles-letters

The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme court and lost again.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/supreme-court-order-r-on-the-application-of-evans-v-attorney-general.html

on what grounds was it a mistake

[Robittybob1]

on what grounds was it a mistake

Make it clear which case you are talking about please.

[G-Unit]

But that isn't what the archiving report says.... And as Carana has said... How can a civil court which has not heard the evidence overule a criminal investigation  that has

The Supreme Court isn't a civil court. It hears appeals relating to civil and criminal cases. The judges looked at the archiving report only because the McCann's lawyers used it as part of their appeal.