McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

There speaks a bureaucrat....

its about having precise rules...not altering them as you go along

[slartibartfast]

its about having precise rules...not altering them as you go along

So if you realise a mistake has been made do you a) see what the words say and adjust the article referenced or b) keep the article referenced and rewrite the judgement to match?

[Mr Gray]

So if you realise a mistake has been made do you a) see what the words say and adjust the article referenced or b) keep the article referenced and rewrite the judgement to match?

Its interesting that you are saying a mistake has been made......by the archiving procedure...then by those who reopened the case...and no one noticed...doesnt sound very professional..imo...I wonder if other mistakes hve been made that no one noticed...does sound good good for the ECHR application

so from what you are saying it was quite reasonable for duarte to interpret the archiving in t way she did

[Carana]

Neither the Court of appeal nor the Supreme Court seem to agree with that line of thought.

There is a bet to place.
The purse is laid on either the opinion of Judges wot have had plenty of college on the requisite laws or the opinion of an anonymous internet poster who manifestly is not fluent in Portuguese let alone Portuguese Legalese.
Mesdames et Messieurs! Faites vos jeux!.

If you're referring to me in your reply, no attempts to decipher Portuguese needed concerning the definition of "public official". Hint: EN before .pdf

A “public official” need not be an already elected representative or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The notion  may  include  persons  of  recognised  public  standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past or from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69


So far, I can see how an application could be accepted for consideration, which is more than I thought a few weeks ago, but that's about it.
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf

[Mr Gray]

If you're referring to me in your reply, no attempts to decipher Portuguese needed concerning the definition of "public official". Hint: EN before .pdf

A “public official” need not be an already elected representative or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The notion  may  include  persons  of  recognised  public  standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past or from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69


So far, I can see how an application could be accepted for consideration, which is more than I thought a few weeks ago, but that's about it.
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf

I'm not sure cases accepted are posted on the ECHR site as such...do you have any knowledge...cases not accepted are publicised so I think we can assume it has not been rejected

[Carana]

You claimed the judges, said the case couldn't  be re-opened if it was archived under 277/1

No, hang on. Umpteen pages back, G-Unit was copying from a court document to the effect that the case couldn't have been reopened if archived under 277/1.

Yet, it seems that it was indeed reopened under archival 277/1.

It wasn't G-Unit "claiming" this from thin air.

[Mr Gray]

No, hang on. Umpteen pages back, G-Unit was copying from a court document to the effect that the case couldn't have been reopened if archived under 277/1.

Yet, it seems that it was indeed reopened under archival 277/1.

It wasn't G-Unit "claiming" this from thin air.

you need to raed my  post again...it says gunit posted the judges claimed the case could not be reopened...not gunit..im surprised you missed that...its in the quote you have just posted

im surrised you cannot see the significance...Duarte basing her argument on277/1.....and the SC replying...the AG got it wrong

[Alice Purjorick]

If you're referring to me in your reply, no attempts to decipher Portuguese needed concerning the definition of "public official". Hint: EN before .pdf

A “public official” need not be an already elected representative or employee of the public authorities at the material time. The notion  may  include  persons  of  recognised  public  standing, from having held a public position of importance in the past or from running for elected office (Kouzmin v. Russia, §§59-69


So far, I can see how an application could be accepted for consideration, which is more than I thought a few weeks ago, but that's about it.
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf

I am not 

[Carana]

I'm not sure cases accepted are posted on the ECHR site as such...do you have any knowledge...cases not accepted are publicised so I think we can assume it has not been rejected

No, TBH I haven't really followed this aspect so far as I ddin't think it would even get accepted, based on the Convention itself.

[jassi]

No, TBH I haven't really followed this aspect so far as I ddin't think it would even get accepted, based on the Convention itself.

I'm sure that if it is accepted, we will see a statement from a 'source close to the family' announcing that.

[Carana]

I am not 

'Course not. Perish the thought. 

[Carana]

Guys and gals... this whole topic is hard enough to try to understand.

Any chance of getting back to it? ;)

[Mr Gray]

The point I find interesting is Duarte based part of her case on 277/1... Then the SC...say.. 277/1 was a mistake... How fair is that

[Robittybob1]

The point I find interesting is Duarte based part of her case on 277/1... Then the SC...say.. 277/1 was a mistake... How fair is that

It is an interesting point.

[Mr Gray]

It is an interesting point.

An important  point..