The Lisbon Libel Trial

[Mr Gray]

Is it partisan to be sceptical? I don't think the two things are compatible.

Is it partisan to look at the evidence and draw conclusions.... As I have done
Its billy who introduced the word.. I dont think its applicable

[Erngath]

Is it partisan to be sceptical? I don't think the two things are compatible.

However, in my opinion, you have never shown any indication in the slightest of being other than in support of Madeleines parents being involved in her disappearance.

[Brietta]

However, in my opinion, you have never shown any indication in the slightest of being other than in support of Madeleines parents being involved in her disappearance.

I have to agree with that assessment.

At the moment the only relevance that the Lisbon Libel Trial has to anything is that it ended up being the pathway to the ECHR.  The utterly bizarre appeal court ruling dictated that had to happen.

There isn't really much point in looking back to where we were because that changes nothing.  The future lies in the European Court where sceptic logic said it could never go - that was obviously wrong.

[barrier]

I have to agree with that assessment.

At the moment the only relevance that the Lisbon Libel Trial has to anything is that it ended up being the pathway to the ECHR.  The utterly bizarre appeal court ruling dictated that had to happen.

There isn't really much point in looking back to where we were because that changes nothing.  The future lies in the European Court where sceptic logic said it could never go - that was obviously wrong.

Much the same way your ilk rubbished the idea that Amaral would be successful in his appeal against the first judgement, it's there to be read if one looks.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is it partisan to be sceptical? I don't think the two things are compatible.

The way you continually refuse to address my question about your beliefs regarding abduction being neither logical nor plausible tells me you are not a very honest, obective debater.  I would have a lot more respect for your contributions if you didn’t always ignore the more difficult questions.  At least Billy gives it a go - no other sceptic  here has (I don’t count facetious attempts to ridicule the theory), so why not?  IMO it’s because you realise stranger abduction is both plausible and logical, you just point blank refuse to explore it objectively.

[Mr Gray]

Much the same way your ilk rubbished the idea that Amaral would be successful in his appeal against the first judgement, it's there to be read if one looks.

Thats because the judgement was totally perversel and unlawul...imo. We will see if the ECHR agree

[G-Unit]

Thats because the judgement was totally perversel and unlawul...imo. We will see if the ECHR agree

Awarding Eur 250,000 damages was perverse, I don't think the ECHR will support that.

European Court of Human Rights held that an award of damages totalling €146,000 euros (about £124,200) – a record in Portugal – to a politician wrongly linked to an investigation into a paedophile scandal in the Azores was disproportionate and could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression...

The Fourth Section declined to order Portugal to pay SIC pecuniary damages of more than €145,000 , saying that Portuguese law allowed the company to apply to the domestic courts to reopen the litigation and remedy the breach of Article 10.

SIC was awarded €4,283.57 euros (about £6,345) for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings in Strasbourg.
https://inforrm.org/2021/07/29/case-law-strasbourg-sic-sociedade-independente-de-comunicacao-v-portugal-record-award-of-libel-damages-breached-article-10-mike-dodd/

It seems that even if the McCanns win at the ECHR they won't get the Eur 500,000 that they were (briefly) able to look forward to receiving without going back to the Portuguese courts.

[Mr Gray]

Awarding Eur 250,000 damages was perverse, I don't think the ECHR will support that.

European Court of Human Rights held that an award of damages totalling €146,000 euros (about £124,200) – a record in Portugal – to a politician wrongly linked to an investigation into a paedophile scandal in the Azores was disproportionate and could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression...

The Fourth Section declined to order Portugal to pay SIC pecuniary damages of more than €145,000 , saying that Portuguese law allowed the company to apply to the domestic courts to reopen the litigation and remedy the breach of Article 10.

SIC was awarded €4,283.57 euros (about £6,345) for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings in Strasbourg.
https://inforrm.org/2021/07/29/case-law-strasbourg-sic-sociedade-independente-de-comunicacao-v-portugal-record-award-of-libel-damages-breached-article-10-mike-dodd/

It seems that even if the McCanns win at the ECHR they won't get the Eur 500,000 that they were (briefly) able to look forward to receiving without going back to the Portuguese courts.

Is this ruling saying the portugues court could reopen the litigate to remedy their mistake

[Mr Gray]

Awarding Eur 250,000 damages was perverse, I don't think the ECHR will support that.

European Court of Human Rights held that an award of damages totalling €146,000 euros (about £124,200) – a record in Portugal – to a politician wrongly linked to an investigation into a paedophile scandal in the Azores was disproportionate and could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression...

The Fourth Section declined to order Portugal to pay SIC pecuniary damages of more than €145,000 , saying that Portuguese law allowed the company to apply to the domestic courts to reopen the litigation and remedy the breach of Article 10.

SIC was awarded €4,283.57 euros (about £6,345) for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings in Strasbourg.
https://inforrm.org/2021/07/29/case-law-strasbourg-sic-sociedade-independente-de-comunicacao-v-portugal-record-award-of-libel-damages-breached-article-10-mike-dodd/

It seems that even if the McCanns win at the ECHR they won't get the Eur 500,000 that they were (briefly) able to look forward to receiving without going back to the Portuguese courts.

What this seems to be saying is that the SC judgement is not final and could be reversed...what an absolute bombshell if its correct

[G-Unit]

Is this ruling saying the portugues court could reopen the litigate to remedy their mistake

They could, but they can refuse as they did in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal, 5 July 2011;

The case concerns the rejection by the Portuguese Supreme Court judgment in March 2012 of the applicant’s request for the reopening of criminal proceedings
https://strasbourgobservers.com/2017/07/28/judges-at-odds-over-courts-authority-to-order-remedies/#more-3854

[Mr Gray]

They could, but they can refuse as they did in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal, 5 July 2011;

The case concerns the rejection by the Portuguese Supreme Court judgment in March 2012 of the applicant’s request for the reopening of criminal proceedings
https://strasbourgobservers.com/2017/07/28/judges-at-odds-over-courts-authority-to-order-remedies/#more-3854

What you have admitted is that the Supreme Courts judgement is not final and could be overturned. We have had posters saying that it could not be overturned and teh ECHR case does not involve Amaral...it certainly does.

what an absolute BOMBSHELL

this may well expalin why amarals assets have remained frozen as the domestic case is not over

[Mr Gray]

They could, but they can refuse as they did in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal, 5 July 2011;

The case concerns the rejection by the Portuguese Supreme Court judgment in March 2012 of the applicant’s request for the reopening of criminal proceedings
https://strasbourgobservers.com/2017/07/28/judges-at-odds-over-courts-authority-to-order-remedies/#more-3854

in this case they refused because...

The Supreme Court found, however, that the Strasbourg judgment was not irreconcilable with the judgment convicting the applicant and did not raise serious doubts as to the merits of the conviction,

[Eleanor]

What you have admitted is that the Supreme Courts judgement is not final and could be overturned. We have had posters saying that it could not be overturned and teh ECHR case does not involve Amaral...it certainly does.

what an absolute BOMBSHELL

this may well expalin why amarals assets have remained frozen as the domestic case is not over

Of course it's for why Amaral's assets are still frozen.  Who else is going to pay if Portugal loses?  Not to mentions all of the persons to whom Amaral owes loads of money.

[G-Unit]

What you have admitted is that the Supreme Courts judgement is not final and could be overturned. We have had posters saying that it could not be overturned and teh ECHR case does not involve Amaral...it certainly does.

what an absolute BOMBSHELL

this may well expalin why amarals assets have remained frozen as the domestic case is not over

You're getting over excited imo. The laws of Portugal allow people to request litigation to be reopened, but the decision belongs to the Supreme Court. If they say no, that's it.

Do you have a cite for Amaral's assets still being frozen, or are you guessing?

[Mr Gray]

You're getting over excited imo. The laws of Portugal allow people to request litigation to be reopened, but the decision belongs to the Supreme Court. If they say no, that's it.

Do you have a cite for Amaral's assets still being frozen, or are you guessing?

Im not guessing..... It was reported on CMOMM.... not proof but evidence.

So how msny posters have said the SC judgement cannot be overturned... You are one as I recall.
This does put a whole new slant on the ECHR verdict.

How many posters said it wont involve Amaral.. It certainly does... Very interesting times ahead