Robert Murat wins libel case against national daily Correio da Manhã

[Chinagirl]

The question here is whether each accused has to repair all damages or only those he's responsible for. The conclusion of the quoted acórdão is equality of the faults and solidarity in repair.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here, but I'm too busy right now to pursue this until later today.

[AnneGuedes]

Jurisprudence in countries of germano-romanic law is considerably less important than precedent established in a previous legal case in Common Law. The judge has a certain freedom in interpreting the statutes but his decision can't be used to solve a Law issue and in principle applies only to a singular case. 

[Chinagirl]

Jurisprudence in countries of germano-romanic law is considerably less important than precedent established in a previous legal case in Common Law. The judge has a certain freedom in interpreting the statutes but his decision can't be used to solve a Law issue and in principle applies only to a singular case.

Yes, I am aware of this difference, but you stated in your post at the top of this page:  "Previous judgements have influence," followed by a passage in Portuguese which I can't read, but presume reinforces your statement. 

The current discussion centred around whether the ruling in the Murat case would have any influence on the forthcoming McCann v Amaral libel trial, and I suggested that I thought not, given that the Portuguese legal system is codified, meaning that each case is judged on its merits, rather than (as in the English system) on precedent.

Your subsequent comment quoted here seems to agree with me, rather than with your statement "previous judgements have influence."

[Eleanor]

I find it interesting only in so far as Free Speech is concerned, which I have been led to believe takes precedents in Portugal.
Amaral presented his book as a theory or opinion, which he has a right to hold and publish.  This Case would suggest that this is not so.

[Mr Gray]

I find it interesting only in so far as Free Speech is concerned, which I have been led to believe takes precedents in Portugal.
Amaral presented his book as a theory or opinion, which he has a right to hold and publish.  This Case would suggest that this is not so.

Who led you to believe that Eleanor?
you might find more of what they say is totally wrong.

[Eleanor]

I find it interesting only in so far as Free Speech is concerned, which I have been led to believe takes precedents in Portugal.
Amaral presented his book as a theory or opinion, which he has a right to hold and publish.  This Case would suggest that this is not so.

Who led you to believe that Eleanor?
you might find more of what they say is totally wrong.

From statements made by various Portuguese Bloggers and Posters who frequently quote the relevant part of The Portuguese Constitution.  Relevant to them, that is.
I know that a lot of what has been said is incorrect, but Portuguese Law is a minefield, and some of the Court decisions are bizarre to say the least.
Consequently, I have been reluctant to place too much hope in the outcome of The Libel Trial.  So this ruling has suggested that Freedom of Speech isn't quite the unalienable right that some would have us believe.

[Chinagirl]

They (the Portuguese bloggers and posters) who for years have quoted that part of the constitution consistently omit the additional section about the responsibilities that go with the right to freedom of speech ....

[Carana]

They (the Portuguese bloggers and posters) who for years have quoted that part of the constitution consistently omit the additional section about the responsibilities that go with the right to freedom of speech ....

Yep. I was about to post the same thing.

[Eleanor]

They (the Portuguese bloggers and posters) who for years have quoted that part of the constitution consistently omit the additional section about the responsibilities that go with the right to freedom of speech ....

Rather like Mr. Tony Bennett did.  It seems to be a common fault with people who are forever screeching about their rights.  The majority of us don't need it because we don't go around libelling and abusing people.

[ferryman]

Yes.  The Portuguese constitution also guarantees the right of citizens to a good name ...

[Eleanor]

Yes.  The Portuguese constitution also guarantees the right of citizens to a good name ...

Very much the same the world over.  And I can hardly see Portugal ruling that anybody can do around saying whatever they like.
I shall have a few things to say about The Judges in this Case if they do, as would be my right.
In fact, I shall make a point of noting the names of The Judges.

[AnneGuedes]

Jurisprudence in countries of germano-romanic law is considerably less important than precedent established in a previous legal case in Common Law. The judge has a certain freedom in interpreting the statutes but his decision can't be used to solve a Law issue and in principle applies only to a singular case.

Yes, I am aware of this difference, but you stated in your post at the top of this page:  "Previous judgements have influence," followed by a passage in Portuguese which I can't read, but presume reinforces your statement. 

The current discussion centred around whether the ruling in the Murat case would have any influence on the forthcoming McCann v Amaral libel trial, and I suggested that I thought not, given that the Portuguese legal system is codified, meaning that each case is judged on its merits, rather than (as in the English system) on precedent.

Your subsequent comment quoted here seems to agree with me, rather than with your statement "previous judgements have influence."

The Murat acórdão shows that previous decisions can eventually inspire judges, if they feel like it, but any decision applies only to a specific case.