McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[jassi]

It remains to be seen whether or not the Portuguese appeal court judges have interpreted European Law correctly or not.

I don't think they have.

It's what the court thinks that is important .

[Vertigo Swirl]

It’s certainly turned out to be a Lady Chatterly’s Lover for the 21st century.

Yes, that famous work of libel against a lowly game keeper and his hoity toity bit of skirt.

[Brietta]

you’re forgetting that they did find a court that agreed with them, some stupid empathetic female judge in Portugal who got overruled, remember?

I think she was actually a pretty tough cookie who heard the case without fear or favour and who reached the right decision.

[jassi]

Not according to two higher Courts.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think she was actually a pretty tough cookie who heard the case without fear or favour and who reached the right decision.

Yes no doubt, I was empathaising with the sceptical position ;-)

[Brietta]

Not according to two higher Courts.

The judgement of which will hopefully be subject to the scrutiny of an even higher court.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not according to two higher Courts.

Is it two?

[jassi]

The judgement of which will hopefully be subject to the scrutiny of an even higher court.

Indeed it will, even if it's discarded along the way.

[G-Unit]

you’re forgetting that they did find a court that agreed with them, some stupid empathetic female judge in Portugal who got overruled, remember?

Only by ruling (mistakenly) that Amaral's freedom of expression was reduced due to his previous employment.

Even the first judge dismissed a lot of their claims;

VI. Over the remaining part, dismiss the requests made in the action attached by the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN and  GERALD PATRICK MACCANN against the defendants  GONÇALO AMARAL,  GUERRA&PAZ, EDITORES, SA and VC–VALENTIM DE CARVALHO-FILMES, AUDIOVISUAIS, SA and of the same claims acquit the defendants.

VII. Fully dismiss the claims made in the attached action against the defendant  TVI-INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, and of those claims acquit the defendant.

VIII. Fully dismiss the requests made in the attached action by the claimants  MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN.

Neither did she order Amaral or his codefendants to pay the McCann's costs.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Only by ruling (mistakenly) that Amaral's freedom of expression was reduced due to his previous employment.

Even the first judge dismissed a lot of their claims;

VI. Over the remaining part, dismiss the requests made in the action attached by the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN and  GERALD PATRICK MACCANN against the defendants  GONÇALO AMARAL,  GUERRA&PAZ, EDITORES, SA and VC–VALENTIM DE CARVALHO-FILMES, AUDIOVISUAIS, SA and of the same claims acquit the defendants.

VII. Fully dismiss the claims made in the attached action against the defendant  TVI-INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, and of those claims acquit the defendant.

VIII. Fully dismiss the requests made in the attached action by the claimants  MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN.

Neither did she order Amaral or his codefendants to pay the McCann's costs.

There you go, she was stupid, she made mistakes, she didn’t even really find in favour of the McCanns, blah blah blah.

[G-Unit]

The most important word is mostly. It's the things Amaral added on that did most damage... Plus he did not give a balanced view of the investigation. Why do you think he failed to mention the alerts had no evidential value... Instead of claiming they confirmed Maddie died in the apartment..

Whether you agree or not, the judge informed the lawyers on 21st January 2015 of the facts which she considered proven and not proven. As the McCann's lawyers raised no objections, it's too late now to argue about them imo.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

[Holly Goodhead]

How much longer until we get the definitive conclusion?

[barrier]

How much longer until we get the definitive conclusion?

Clear as mud I think holly.

[G-Unit]

1. Was there an infringement of the applicants' right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 , § 83, 7 February 2012; and Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (dec.), Nos. 73911/16, 233/17 3086/17 and 5155/17, § 42, 25 June 2019) with regard in particular to the allegations made by GA in the disputed book and documentary?

The other interesting point in the Axel Springer case is that he was seen as having “actively sought the limelight” which reduced his “legitimate expectation” that his private life would be protected.

That was a point made in the McCann case, that they had voluntarily become public figures, which meant they couldn't expect the same protection of their privacy as less public people can expect.

[Vertigo Swirl]

del, wrong case.