ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[Vertigo Swirl]

As if there'd be anything left to investigate. The case is solved, so we're told.

Why would the McCanns doubt Brueckners guilt, given the overwhelming & irrefutable evidence he killed Maddie?

It will be interesting to see you explaining why the (iyo) child’s killers would continue to fund the search for their child’s killer when CB will never be cleared of committing the crime.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I really hope they fund the search for Joana. 

Me too.

[G-Unit]

Yeah, it will definitely ruin my life if Amaral gets his hands on the Fund dosh.

Ironically most of the Fund 'dosh' as you put it now consists mostly of money raised by sales of Kate McCann's book. 

Y/E 2019 £ 1,239
Y/E 2018 £ 84,096
Y/E 2014 £400,000
Previously £ 950,000 (mentioned in 2014 accounts)

The problem is that those funds are restricted and aren't available to be used for anything but the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine. Consequently the Sun's suggestion that the Fund could be wiped out by having to pay compensation to Amaral is wrong. The Fund's assets are protected, so the Directors aren't able to pay £750,000 to Amaral without Kate McCann's permission.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ironically most of the Fund 'dosh' as you put it now consists mostly of money raised by sales of Kate McCann's book. 

Y/E 2019 £ 1,239
Y/E 2018 £ 84,096
Y/E 2014 £400,000
Previously £ 950,000 (mentioned in 2014 accounts)

The problem is that those funds are restricted and aren't available to be used for anything but the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine. Consequently the Sun's suggestion that the Fund could be wiped out by having to pay compensation to Amaral is wrong. The Fund's assets are protected, so the Directors aren't able to pay £750,000 to Amaral without Kate McCann's permission.

And your point is?

[Eleanor]

Me too.

Mr Too Also.

[Brietta]

Yet again we are mulling over old shibboleths ... does the ECHR have an interest in Madeleine's Fund?  if not why is it under discussion yet again ... yet again ... and again ...and again 👀

[Eleanor]

Yet again we are mulling over old shibboleths ... does the ECHR have an interest in Madeleine's Fund?  if not why is it under discussion yet again ... yet again ... and again ...and again 👀

The ECHR won't be even remotely interested in The Madeleine Fund or in who has to pay whatever.  But whatever happens the McCann Bashing will go on... and on... and on. 

The Fund has always been an easy target and if The McCanns win then there will be screeches and demands to know what will happen to The Money, as if there is anything anyone can do about it.  Therein lies the anger.

[G-Unit]

Yet again we are mulling over old shibboleths ... does the ECHR have an interest in Madeleine's Fund?  if not why is it under discussion yet again ... yet again ... and again ...and again 👀

According to the Sun article which triggered this discussion, there would be no ECHR involvement without the possibility that the McCanns would have to pay Amaral a huge amount of compensation;

And they went to the ECHR in a final effort to avoid paying Amaral £750,000 in compensation after accusing him of libel.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14472108/madeleine-mccann-parents-friendly-settlement/

I don't know how applying to the ECHR can affect any compension payments due to Amaral as the Sun doesn't explain why and how it reached the above conclusion.
However, unless the McCanns intend to pay this supposed compensation themselves, then the Fund, already involved in funding the libel trial, will clearly be implicated.

[Vertigo Swirl]

According to the Sun article which triggered this discussion, there would be no ECHR involvement without the possibility that the McCanns would have to pay Amaral a huge amount of compensation;

And they went to the ECHR in a final effort to avoid paying Amaral £750,000 in compensation after accusing him of libel.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14472108/madeleine-mccann-parents-friendly-settlement/

I don't know how applying to the ECHR can affect any compension payments due to Amaral as the Sun doesn't explain why and how it reached the above conclusion.
However, unless the McCanns intend to pay this supposed compensation themselves, then the Fund, already involved in funding the libel trial, will clearly be implicated.

As no one here knows the answers to your questions I would strongly recommend you take your concerns to Tracey Kandohla and perhaps she can clarify the situation to your satisfaction. 

[Eleanor]

According to the Sun article which triggered this discussion, there would be no ECHR involvement without the possibility that the McCanns would have to pay Amaral a huge amount of compensation;

And they went to the ECHR in a final effort to avoid paying Amaral £750,000 in compensation after accusing him of libel.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14472108/madeleine-mccann-parents-friendly-settlement/

I don't know how applying to the ECHR can affect any compension payments due to Amaral as the Sun doesn't explain why and how it reached the above conclusion.
However, unless the McCanns intend to pay this supposed compensation themselves, then the Fund, already involved in funding the libel trial, will clearly be implicated.

Nothing to do with Justice and Human Rights then?

[G-Unit]

Nothing to do with Justice and Human Rights then?

I don't know how 'friendly settlements' fit into concepts of justice and human rights, to be honest. The Portuguese courts and the McCanns differed so significantly about these concepts that a friendly settlement seems impossible in my opinion.

The Portuguese courts examined all the McCann's arguments and dismissed them. The McCanns then decided to apply to the ECHR for a ruling. I can see no basis for a resolution by negotiation, because I think the two sides are too far apart. That's just my opinion, obviously.

[Eleanor]

I don't know how 'friendly settlements' fit into concepts of justice and human rights, to be honest. The Portuguese courts and the McCanns differed so significantly about these concepts that a friendly settlement seems impossible in my opinion.

The Portuguese courts examined all the McCann's arguments and dismissed them. The McCanns then decided to apply to the ECHR for a ruling. I can see no basis for a resolution by negotiation, because I think the two sides are too far apart. That's just my opinion, obviously.

I do so agree.

[jassi]

I don't know how 'friendly settlements' fit into concepts of justice and human rights, to be honest. The Portuguese courts and the McCanns differed so significantly about these concepts that a friendly settlement seems impossible in my opinion.

The Portuguese courts examined all the McCann's arguments and dismissed them. The McCanns then decided to apply to the ECHR for a ruling. I can see no basis for a resolution by negotiation, because I think the two sides are too far apart. That's just my opinion, obviously.

If the Portuguese have erred over their interpretation of Human Rights, I can't see that they would want to concede that on the basis of a 'friendly agreement'.
They would want a definitive ruling from the Court.
IMO

[Eleanor]

If the Portuguese have erred over their interpretation of Human Rights, I can't see that they would want to concede that on the basis of a 'friendly agreement'.
They would want a definitive ruling from the Court.
IMO

Haven't they had enough of those already?

[Mr Gray]

I don't know how 'friendly settlements' fit into concepts of justice and human rights, to be honest. The Portuguese courts and the McCanns differed so significantly about these concepts that a friendly settlement seems impossible in my opinion.

The Portuguese courts examined all the McCann's arguments and dismissed them. The McCanns then decided to apply to the ECHR for a ruling. I can see no basis for a resolution by negotiation, because I think the two sides are too far apart. That's just my opinion, obviously.

In the Uk we have pre action protocol and it seems to me that this is what is meant by  afriendly settlement. it seems its standard procedure and the McCanns are not being urged to settle.

This is the McCanns v Portugal and the ECHr will want Portugals response to the McCanns claims. I dont see a settlement being made and it will imo then move to the next stage where the ECHR will look at the claims being made. I dont see any chance of it being declared inadmissible based on the rules of admissibility and previous case law