Imo you are making an absolute foo
If you read the judgement it highlights exactly why the mccanns felt the SC judgement was unfair....its all there in the judgement you think you've read.
The lawyer has to highlight the relevant articles and MAKE HIS CASE... as to why Portugal has failed.
Let's look at the test case referenced and the summary ruling - Von Hannover v Germany:
Judgment
On 24 June 2004, the Court unanimously ruled that there was a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It accepted that scenes from daily life, involving activities such as engaging in sport, out walking, leaving a restaurant or on holiday were of a purely private nature, but also noted that "photos appearing in the tabloid press are often taken in a climate of continual harassment which induces in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution" and that "the context in which these photos were taken – without the applicant’s knowledge or consent – and the harassment endured by many public figures in their daily lives cannot be fully disregarded".This ruling is punctuated with opinion. That's their job; using their experience and referencing previous case law, they're asked to preside and make a value judgement i.e. opinion.
Look at how nuanced this judgement is. They've made a distinction between what constitutes intrusion in to a private life based on the behaviour of paparazzi and the context of the activities being undertaken; a far more complex judgement than McCann v Portugal and one that required way more opinion. Both instances photos are taken without consent, but one context breaches privacy when the other doesn't.
The lines are ambiguous, but somebody has to decide at some point.
