That EU judgment ....

[honestbroker1]

https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/ne ... e-verdict/

[jjbd]

Will be interesting to see how it goes (and the reasoning for the decision)

[honestbroker1]

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.p ... 691009#new

Brietta at UK Justice writes:

No-one had heard of Brueckner when the case was submitted to the ECHR.

There is a point Brietta has overlooked, here.

Way, way, back, before the name of Brueckner was ever mentioned, at least publicly, Andy Redwood did say that one of the options being investigated was (sic) a burglary gone wrong, which could, well, have been an indirect reference to Brueckner.

So Brueckner might have been on police radar long before his name became public.

[sal]

The judgement has been released

McCanns lose

[Winter]

The judgement has been released

McCanns lose

Not impressed

[jjbd]

Very disappointing. I wonder if they will ask for the matter to be considered by The Grand Chamber of the Court?

[Pedro]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... libel-case

https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mc ... l-12701770

[Pedro]

this is no surprise to me.

[sal]

expresso.pt

Parents of the English girl who disappeared in 2007 in the Algarve took the case to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that Gonçalo Amaral’s book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” jeopardized her reputation and presumption of innocence.
The European Court of Human Rights found that the Portuguese State did not violate European conventions (specifically, Article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life) in the case of Madeleine McCann's parents' complaint about the former inspector's book by PJ Gonçalo Amaral “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira”.

The lawsuit concerns statements made by the former inspector - in the book, but also in a documentary and in a newspaper interview - about the alleged involvement of Madeleine McCann's parents in her disappearance, on May 3, 2007 in the Algarve. The English girl's parents had alleged a violation of their right to reputation and the presumption of innocence.

The European court took into account the 2017 Supreme Court rulings regarding the civil claims filed by Gerry and Kate McCann - which did not consider the couple to be at fault or even suggest suspicions against them with regard to the circumstances. where Maddie had disappeared. “The applicants' complaint concerning their presumption of innocence was thus manifestly ill-founded”, say the European judges.

The court further argued that, even assuming that the parents’ reputation had been harmed, it was not because of the arguments presented by Gonçalo Amaral, “but as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation (the Public Ministry decided not to take further action in July 2008) resulting from intense media attention and much controversy”.

The information, at the time it was under judicial secrecy, was made public “in some detail, even before the book in question was published”. After the publication of Gonçalo Amaral's book, “the authorities had not failed in their obligation to protect the right of applicants to respect for their private life”.

Expresso tried to contact the couple's lawyer in this case, Ricardo Correia Afonso, without success.

[jjbd]

Full judgment here https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threa ... 53/page-15

too long to copy here.

[honestbroker1]

The problem is that the EU does not hear direct appeals against decisions of national courts, no matter how perverse, so the McCanns had to find a different angle to lodge their appeal. Their angle was that their privacy had been invaded. The EU rejected it.

[sal]

2. A JUDGMENT IS GIVENIf your application was not declared inadmissible the Court, after examining it, may find that there has been no violation of the Conventionor, on the contrary, that your rights have been violated. If it does find a violation, it may award you compensation. Note, however, that under no circumstances will the Court set aside a national court’s decision.If the judgment is given by a Committee, it is final and there is no possibility of appeal. A Chamber judgment becomes final 3 months after it was delivered. During those 3 months you or the respondent Government may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber for fresh examination. Remember that the Court accepts such requests for referral only in exceptional cases. Grand Chamber judgments are final and not open to appeal

[sal]

Gonçalo Amaral praises Portuguese justice, given the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to the complaint of Maddie Mccan's parents
The former PJ inspector says that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to the complaint of Maddie McCan's parents is what is expected for those who defend freedom of expression.


Radio Observer
Text
20 set 2022, 12:12

[honestbroker1]

All we need now is for Herr Walter's case against Brueckner to collapse and the haters' cup of malevolent joy will overflow.

[Pedro]

http://findmadeleine.com/updates/index.html

[Whiterose]

However, European judges rejected that claim - saying the McCanns' reputation had actually been damaged by Portuguese police naming them as suspects for a short time and not Amaral's comments.


Hang on it was Amaral who made them Arguido's, plus his book is naming them as suspects, that wasn't for a short time it's been years.

I don't understand it I really don't.

[sal]

Official Find Madeleine Campaign

·
Decision of European Court of Humans Rights: McCann and Healy v Portugal (Application Number 57195/17)
We are naturally disappointed with the decision of the European Court of Humans Rights announced today. However, much has changed since we started legal proceedings 13 years ago against Mr Amaral, his publisher and broadcaster.
We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral’s unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine. If the public believed that we were involved in her disappearance, then people would not be alert for possible clues and may not report relevant information to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s). We are grateful for the ongoing work by the British, German and Portuguese police. We hope that with, the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance and bring them to justice.
Kate and Gerry McCann

[sal]

Former inspector of the Judiciary Police (PJ) Gonçalo Amaral considered this Tuesday that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to acquit the Portuguese State in relation to the complaint of Maddie McCann's parents "is a victory of justice".




“It is the victory of justice, first of all, and the victory of the Portuguese State and the Portuguese justice system, which worked very well ”, the former PJ inspector told Lusa, also underlining that “congratulations to all those who defend freedom of opinion and expression”.

NEWSLETTER



At issue in the Strasbourg-based court was the complaint against the Portuguese justice for having acquitted Gonçalo Amaral of compensating the parents of the British girl - who disappeared in Lagos, in May 2007 - after allegations made by the former PJ inspector in a book, in a documentary and in an interview with the newspaper Correio da Manhã.

Regarding the process of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, Gonçalo Amaral said that the process is open, but, using police slang, in "soft tide", that is, stopped, pointing out "responsibility" to the PJ for the current situation of the case.

“It is a gross mistake to be waiting for decisions from the Germans and the English for us [Portuguese police] to go do anything”, said the former inspector of the Judiciary, reiterating the criticisms made earlier in his latest book “Maddie — Basta de Mentiras! ” (Contraponto Editores, 2021), especially with regard to German research.

Gonçalo Amaral recalled that he had access to the German investigation process, analyzed it and defended that the German suspect [Christian Bruckner] arrested in Germany and who was made an accused by the Portuguese Public Ministry in the disappearance of Maddie “has not committed any crime of rape in Portugal”. ”, contrary to what the German authorities claim , who have already sentenced the defendant to seven years in prison.

According to Gonçalo Amaral, “it is documented” that there was no crime of rape by Bruckner to a foreign citizen in the Algarve , noting that the German authorities sent requests for international collaboration “based on lies” and that the Portuguese authorities “never questioned” these allegations. , when there is a medical report from the Hospital de Portimão ensuring that the violation did not occur.

Maddie's parents filed a complaint against Portugal, but the ECtHR understood that there was no violation of the right to reserve private life. For Kate and Gerry McCann , the words of the leader of the investigation into the disappearance of the girl, then three years old, represented a violation of the right to respect for private life and the right to the presumption of innocence.

lusa/observador

[honestbroker1]

Very disappointing. I wonder if they will ask for the matter to be considered by The Grand Chamber of the Court?

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FAQ_GC_ENG.pdf

The Court must first examine whether your application is admissible. This means that the
case must comply with certain requirements set out in the Convention. If the conditions are
not satisfied, your application will be rejected. If you have made several complaints, the
Court may declare one or more of them admissible and dismiss the others.

(More in an edit)

I don't think so, unfortunately.

Would love to be proved wrong, though.

[honestbroker1]

Very disappointing. I wonder if they will ask for the matter to be considered by The Grand Chamber of the Court?

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FAQ_GC_ENG.pdf

The Court must first examine whether your application is admissible. This means that the
case must comply with certain requirements set out in the Convention. If the conditions are
not satisfied, your application will be rejected. If you have made several complaints, the
Court may declare one or more of them admissible and dismiss the others.

(More in an edit)

I don't think so, unfortunately.

Would love to be proved wrong, though.

Then again, if the EU judges missed that the deployment of the English sniffer dogs was incompetent and corrupt; their handler freelance and pretty much ignoring the direction of Mark Harrison, whose lead he was supposed to be following, then maybe ....