McCanns claim they can still appeal Supreme Court decision.

[slartibartfast]

this is 2014
It is now clearly established in the case law of the Court of Human Rights that Article 8 protects the “right to reputation” as an aspect of private life. This is a relatively new idea, first appearing the case law as recently as 2004 (see Chauvy v France [70]).

The development was a controversial one because “reputation” was deliberately left out of Article 8 when the Convention was drafted (see our posts by Heather Rogers QC “Is there a right to reputation?“, Part 1 and Part 2). Nevertheless, the case law in both Strasbourg and the domestic courts is clear and consistent and is not likely to be reversed.


it obviously supersedes and mentions your cite
https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/privacy-and-defamation-strasbourg-blurs-the-boundaries-hugh-tomlinson-qc/

I just followed the links to further readings in your cite.

[Mr Gray]

I just followed the links to further readings in your cite.

as you can see your cite is out of date and defemation is clearly covered by article 8.

[Mr Gray]

so it seems the mccanns will have a strong case to take portugal to the ECHR

[stephen25000]

On what grounds will the Mccanns go to the ECHR. and take the State of Portugal to court ?



They were allowed to take up their case in Portugal, and they lost.

[Robittybob1]

On what grounds will the Mccanns go to the ECHR. and take the State of Portugal to court ?



They were allowed to take up their case in Portugal, and they lost.

The way I look at it was Portugal made sure they lost.

[Mr Gray]

On what grounds will the Mccanns go to the ECHR. and take the State of Portugal to court ?



They were allowed to take up their case in Portugal, and they lost.

article 8...defamation...have you not read the posts this evening

[slartibartfast]

article 8...defamation...have you not read the posts this evening

Summary of Judgement

I - Freedom of expression and honor constitute two fundamental rights, which, given their relevance, deserved constitutional consecration.

II - These are rights belonging to the category of rights, freedoms and personal guarantees, so that its specific regime, namely that provided for in Article 18 (2) of the CRP, is applicable to them.

III - Paragraph 2 thus gave expression to the principle of proportionality, also called the prohibition of excess principle.

IV - In the light of the Constitution, freedom of expression and honor have the same legal value, making any principle of abstract hierarchy impractical.

V - The principle of practical agreement or harmonization must therefore be resorted to.

VI - However, since it is impossible to reach a harmonization solution, in order to obain a fair solution for the conflict of rights, weighting of goods will have to be made, according to balancing methodology adapted to the specificity of the case.

VII - Reason why the resolution of the conflict will have to assume a concrete nature, exhausting itself in each case that resolves.

VIII - The concrete resolution of the conflict between freedom of expression and the honor of public figures, in the European legal context where we are inserted, takes place under the influence of the European jurisprudential paradigm of human rights.

IX - The ECHR, in interpreting and applying the European Convention on Human Rights, has defended and developed a doctrine of enhanced protection of freedom of expression, in particular where the target of imputed facts and of formulation of dishonorouble value  judgments is a public figure and there is an issue of political or public interest in general.

X - In the light of a case-law approach stabilised by the ECHR, as it happens in cases like the present case, Portuguese courts can not but be influenced by the European paradigm of human rights.

XI - Weighing the interests involved and following a balancing methodology adapted to the specific nature of the case, it must be concluded that it is freedom of expression which in the present case requires greater protection.

XII - Since the exercise of freedom of expression in the present case is within the limits that must be considered admissible in a democratic today society, open and plural, taking into account the above-mentioned criteria of weighting and the principle of proportionality, which precludes the unlawfulness of the damage to the appellants' honor.

XIII - The principle of the presumption of innocence and the duty to reserve are irrelevant for the decision on the question that has to be solved.

[Mr Gray]

Summary of Judgement

you are posting the opinion of the SC...the mccanns want the opinion of the ECHR

[Miss Taken Identity]

so it seems the mccanns will have a strong case to take portugal to the ECHR

Oh I don't think so. If the police suspect you of a crime and write a report about it, as all police do, then there are no free legs to stand on.. so to speak.

There is also the little matter of the crime still unknown and many theories are well represented in the global media, which it has to be said was brought about by the Tapas and the events in which they created the sorrry mess they find themselves in.

I think the people of Portugal will win on this one. On account they have no case to answer.

[Brietta]

this is 2014
It is now clearly established in the case law of the Court of Human Rights that Article 8 protects the “right to reputation” as an aspect of private life. This is a relatively new idea, first appearing the case law as recently as 2004 (see Chauvy v France [70]).

The development was a controversial one because “reputation” was deliberately left out of Article 8 when the Convention was drafted (see our posts by Heather Rogers QC “Is there a right to reputation?“, Part 1 and Part 2). Nevertheless, the case law in both Strasbourg and the domestic courts is clear and consistent and is not likely to be reversed.


it obviously supersedes and mentions your cite
https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/privacy-and-defamation-strasbourg-blurs-the-boundaries-hugh-tomlinson-qc/

That's definitive then.

Kate and Gerry McCann are entitled to take their case ... whatever their lawyers advise it should be, to the ECHR.

May good luck go with them should they decide to proceed.

[slartibartfast]

you are posting the opinion of the SC...the mccanns want the opinion of the ECHR

The ECHR will be interested in how the SC came to their judgement and to ensure they considered how it fitted in with the ECHR. From the judgement they did.

[Miss Taken Identity]

That's definitive then.

Kate and Gerry McCann are entitled to take their case ... whatever their lawyers advise it should be, to the ECHR.

May good luck go with them should they decide to proceed.

Yeah, in the meantime  Little Maddie...

[Mr Gray]

The ECHR will be interested in how the SC came to their judgement and to ensure they considered how it fitted in with the ECHR. From the judgement they did.

read this..

Notwithstanding the recognition of “reputation” as an Article 8 right, the case law has, until recently, maintained a clear distinction between defamation and privacy. This is on the basis that different aspects of Article 8 are engaged in the two kinds of case.  The right to reputation concerns the protection of a public reputation against unjustified damage. If reputation is damaged by a publication then the issue has traditionally been understood to be whether that damage can be justified: either because the reputation was undeserved (because the allegation was true) or because the damage was justified (because, for example, it was a responsible statement on a matter of public interest).  On this view, questions as to how the information was obtained or the extent to which the claimant had put similar information into the public domain in the past are simply irrelevant.

[Miss Taken Identity]

The ECHR will be interested in how the SC came to their judgement and to ensure they considered how it fitted in with the ECHR. From the judgement they did.

Indeed Slart... the Devil is in the detail and also it is worth noting all this hot air seems to fit in with the high profile reputation management paid for by....

[Alice Purjorick]

The ECHR will be interested in how the SC came to their judgement and to ensure they considered how it fitted in with the ECHR. From the judgement they did.

The ECHR will in the first instance be interested in whether the application is admissible to heard by the committee which decides whether it will be admissible to be heard by the court. So there are two hurdles to clear, neither of which has an appeals procedure so out is out. The typical time scale is 5 years to committee and a further 5 years to be heard by the court. The application has to be in by July 31st 2017.