Re: EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance

by garfy 20.09.22 11:07

da Manhã : which thesis do you favor as an investigator in the case ?
GA : The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which faithfully recounts the investigation up to September : it reflects the opinion of the Portuguese and British police as well as that of the prosecution. For us, until that moment, everything was proven : the concealment of the body, the simulation of an abduction and the endangerment of the life of others.
Correio da Manhã : what led you to suspect the McCanns of all these crimes ?
GA : It all starts with an abduction theory constructed by the parents. And the abduction is based on two elements : one is the testimony given by [JT], who says he saw a man walk past the apartment with a child in his arms, the other is the open window while it had to be closed. It has been proven that none of this happened.
Correio da Manhã : how has this been proven?
GA: [JT] is not credible : it identifies and recognizes different people (...).
(...)
Correio da Manhã : did we fail to reconstruct the facts ?
GA : It was not carried out ten or fifteen days after the events because the village was full of tourists and journalists. We were sure we could do it later. But that was not possible.
Correio da Manhã : the theory of the abduction being invalidated, how does one construct the thesis of death ?
GA : With the elements that existed, we could only end up with an accident, natural death, any cause not involving the intervention of a third party. We were consolidating evidence and moving forward to understand what might have happened to the little girl's body.
Also taking into account the information from the British laboratory on the traces found inside the McCanns' car.
(...)
Correio da Manhã : What do you think happened to [the child's] body ?
GA : Everything indicated that the body, after being in a specific place, had been moved from one car to another, twenty and some days later. Given the traces found in the car, the little girl had to be transported there.
(...)
Correio da Manhã : did you feel any political pressure during the investigation ?
GA : Inhibition. One of our mistakes was not having moved forward with this group, with everything that was at our disposal: tapping, monitoring. It would have been necessary to recover the clothes that the little girl wore when she left the kindergarten to go home. But there we thought : if we do it, we will say that we suspect the parents. This inhibition was present all the time.
Correio da Manhã : and that led you to the abduction.
GA : We first had to prove that there had not been an abduction to then focus on these people.
Correio da Manhã : how does the pressure manifest itself ?
Immediately on May 4, in the morning, with a call from the consul saying that the PJ was doing nothing. After an ambassador. Then an assessor ( assessor ) and an English Prime Minister.
(...) »
* The adaptation of the book into a documentary and its distribution
24 . The book was adapted into a documentary with the same title. It was produced by the production company Valentim de Carvalho (" VC ") and released in DVD format from the end of April 2009.
25 . The first part of the documentary aired on TVI channel on April 13, 2009. The second part aired on May 12 , 2009. Prior to the airing of the documentary, TVI channel released the following statement :
“ The following program is a documentary based on the book by Gonçalo Amaral, ex-PJ inspector who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine in the Algarve. His version of events is dismissed by Maddie's parents, who continue to say it is a kidnapping case.
The criminal procedure conducted by the Portuguese authorities ended with a discontinuation of the investigation, a decision contested by Gonçalo Amaral.
The broadcast of this documentary does not claim to designate those responsible, this task being the responsibility of justice, but seeks to shed light on a case that has remained a mystery for more than two years, and to provide elements to allow public opinion public to understand it. »
26. In this documentary, GA appeared as the narrator. He reiterated the thesis defended in his book, opening the documentary with the following introduction:
“ My name is Gonçalo Amaral, I was a judicial police investigator for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which occurred on May 3 , 2007. For the next 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted and that she died in the vacation apartment from Praia da Luz. Find out the whole truth about what happened that day. A death that many people want to hide. »
27 . He concluded the documentary thus :
" From what I know, Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5-A on May 3, 2007. I'm sure the truth about what happened (that Madeleine died in the apartment) will be one day revealed. The investigation was abruptly interrupted and there was a political and hasty classification without any follow-up. There are people who hide the truth but sooner or later the veneer will crack and the revelations will arise. Justice will then be done to [M.] (...) ”.
28. The DVD was sold with the April 24, 2009 edition of the Correio da Manhã newspaper .
* THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANTS
* Requests for precautionary measures ( medidas cautelares )
1. The request for precautionary measures to ban books and documentaries
29 . On an unspecified date in May 2009, the applicants, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children, lodged an application with the Lisbon Court against GA and the GP editions, the VC company and the television channel TVI, with a view to the application of precautionary measures ( medidas cautelares ), demanding the immediate withdrawal from points of sale of GA's book and the documentary sold in DVD format, the prohibition of any reprinting or reproduction, the prohibition of any assignment of author on the book or documentary, as well as the prohibition of any dissemination of opinions, interviews or any other publication or video defending the thesis supported by GA in his book.
30. In a judgment of 18 February 2010, the Lisbon court granted the applicants' request.
31. The defendants appealed against the judgment.
32 . In a judgment of October 14, 2010, the Lisbon Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Lisbon Court of February 18, 2010. It found that GA's book revealed the author's opinion about the investigation by relating the facts that appeared in the investigation file and without bringing any new elements. It held that the applicants could not invoke a breach of their right to respect for private life since, admittedly for the legitimate purpose of finding their daughter, they had exposed the case in the public square, thus opening the way to expression of opinions and criticisms.
2. The request for precautionary measures for the seizure of GA's property
33. On an unspecified date, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children, the applicants requested the Lisbon Court to order the provisional seizure ( arresto ) of any profit made by GA on the sale of the book, DVD or on any transfer of rights as well as the seizure of GA's bank accounts, of his shares in a company, of one third of his salary as manager of this company and of one third of his pension for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of the compensation they were going to claim in the context of a civil liability action brought against GA for damage to their credit and reputation within the meaning of Article 484 of the Civil Code.
34. In a judgment of 16 October 2009, the Lisbon court granted the applicants' request. The parties did not indicate whether GA appealed the judgment and, if so, what the outcome of that appeal was.

by Verdi 20.09.22 12:04

by Verdi 20.09.22 12:14

McCanns ‘case against Portugal’ bombs

By
Natasha Donn - 20th September 2022

European Court of Human Rights rules ‘no violations on right to reputation or on presumption of innocence’

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann heard today that their case against Portugal – lodged at the European Court of Human Rights after their long-running legal pursuit of former detective Gonçalo Amaral hit a brick wall – has also crashed into the buffers.

A statement from the court explains that the McCanns “alleged that there had been a violation of their right to reputation and to their right to be presumed innocent” in Mr Amaral’s book ‘Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira’, considered by the Portuguese court system as legitimate in terms of freedom of expression.

Says the statement: “The Court considered that, even assuming that the applicants’ reputation had been damaged, this was not on account of the argument put forward by the book’s author but rather 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 prosecutor’s office decided to take no further action in July 2008) and had led to intense media attention and much controversy.

“The information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published.

“It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.

“The Court also considered that in the Supreme Court’s judgments of January and March 2017 – concerning the civil claims lodged by the applicants – it had not made comments implying any guilt on the part of the applicants or even suggesting suspicions against them with regard to the circumstances in which their daughter had disappeared.

“The applicants’ complaint concerning their right to be presumed innocent was thus manifestly ill-founded”.

According to press reports in the UK – where newspapers continue to erroneously suggest this is a judgement between the McCanns and Gonçalo Amaral – the couple now have three months to appeal against the decision.

At some point, the court costs this legal pursuit has involved will require to be paid. And if the decisions continue in the vein they have taken over the last six years, these costs will fall to the McCanns.

According to the Daily Mail last week, this “may involve them dipping into their Madeleine Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned account, which according to the latest accounts has a balance of £931,500”.

natasha.donn@portugalresident.com

https://www.portugalresident.com/mccanns-case-against-portugal-bombs/

by Doug D 20.09.22 12:34

Thanks to Textusa for this regarding any possible appeal.

EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance - Page 2 Appeal10

by garfy 20.09.22 13:21

The McCanns said that they were "naturally disappointed" with the ruling, but had taken action over Goncalo Amaral's claims because they feared they would hamper the search for Madeleine.
In a statement issued through their lawyers, they said: "We are naturally disappointed with decision of the European Court of Human 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.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/20/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mccann-lose-latest-stage-libel-battle/

by Verdi 20.09.22 13:30

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

by Verdi 20.09.22 13:41

Madeleine McCann: Parents lose latest legal battle over ex-detective’s comments

Sep 20, 2022

01:02

The parents of Madeleine McCann have lost the latest stage of their legal battle over comments made by a retired Portuguese detective claiming they were involved in her disappearance.

Lawyers for Kate and Gerry McCann argued that Portuguese authorities had breached their right to respect for a private and family life in the way the courts there dealt with their libel claims against Goncalo Amaral.

by **PeterMac** 20.09.22 14:01

B. The Court's assessment
1. General principles
106. The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention is one of the elements of a fair criminal trial required by Article 6 § 1. The presumption of innocence is violated if an official statement concerning a defendant reflects the feeling that he is guilty, when his guilt has not previously been legally established. All that is required, even in the absence of a formal finding, is a statement of reasons suggesting that the magistrate considers the person concerned to be guilty (Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 35, Series A no. 308, and Marchiani v. France (dec. .), no. 30392/03, 24 January 2006).

107. However, having regard to the need to ensure that the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 is practical and effective, the presumption of innocence also has another aspect. Its general purpose, within the framework of this second prong, is to prevent individuals who have benefited from an acquittal or the discontinuance of charges from being treated by public agents or authorities as if they were in fact guilty of the offense with which they were charged. Admittedly, in such situations, the presumption of innocence has already made it possible – through the application during the trial of the various requirements inherent in the procedural guarantee it offers – to prevent an unjust criminal conviction from being handed down. However, without protection to enforce in any subsequent proceedings an acquittal or a decision to drop the charges, the guarantees of a fair trial set out in Article 6 § 2 would risk becoming theoretical and illusory (Allen, § 94, and G.I.E.M. S.R.L and others, § 314, both cited above).

108. Whenever the question of the applicability of Article 6 § 2 arises in the context of subsequent proceedings, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of a link – such as that mentioned above – between the completed criminal proceedings and subsequent action. Such a link may be present, for example, when the subsequent action requires the examination of the outcome of the criminal proceedings and, in particular, when it obliges the court concerned to analyze the criminal judgment, to engage in a study or an assessment of the evidence in the criminal case, to assess the applicant's involvement in any or all of the events leading to the indictment, or to comment on continuing indications to suggest a possible guilt on the part of the person concerned (Allen, cited above, § 104)

2. Application of these principles in the present case
109. The Court notes that the civil proceedings at issue in the present case concerned two claims by the applicants. The first sought to obtain compensation for the alleged damage to their reputation and their right to the presumption of innocence arising, according to them, from the statements made by G.A. about them. The second related to the ban on the sale of the impugned book and documentary (see paragraphs 35-36 and 38 above). The proceedings therefore did not relate to a “criminal charge” against the applicants. It remains to be seen whether it was linked to the criminal proceedings initiated following the disappearance of their daughter in such a way as to bring it within the scope of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

110. The Court notes that the civil courts seised were not, in the present case, legally called upon to consider the content of the decision to discontinue proceedings of 21 July 2008 (compare with O.L. v. Finland (dec.) , no. 61110/00, 5 July 2005, and Martínez Aguirre and others v. Spain (dec.), nos. 75529/16 and 79503/16, §§ 46-48, 25 June 2019). If the Supreme Court did so when it was ruling at last instance (see paragraphs 54 and 58 above), it appears that it was in this case in response to the arguments raised by the applicants in their cassation appeal, in which they said they had been declared innocent by this decision (see paragraph 47 above, and compare Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 44, ECHR 2000 X). The Court also notes that the Supreme Court did not carry out an assessment of the evidence which had been added to the file of the criminal investigation (compare with Kaiser v. Austria (dec.), no. 15706/08, § 51 , December 13, 2016) and that it only looked at Atricle, the ground for dismissal in order to base its decisions. In its judgments of January 31, 2017 and March 27, 2017, it then noted that the abandonment of the proceedings against the applicants had resulted not from a finding of innocence but from a lack of conclusive evidence with regard to Article 277 § 2 of the CCP (see paragraph 61 above) and that, in such circumstances, the criminal investigation could be reopened at any time if decisive evidence were collected (see paragraphs 54 and 58 above, see also the principles set out in paragraph 44 of the Bikas v. Germany judgment (no. 76607/13, 25 January 2018)).

111. Moreover, even assuming that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention were applicable to the civil proceedings at issue in the present case, it does not appear that, in its judgments of 31 January 2017 and 27 March 2017 , the Supreme Court made comments suggesting any guilt or even suspicion on the part of the applicants concerning the circumstances of their daughter's disappearance (see, Allen, cited above, § 122 and compare with O'Neill v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14541/15, §§ 37-39, 8 January 2019).

112. Having regard to these findings, the Court concludes that the applicants' complaint based on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the reasoning of the judgments of the Supreme Court is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and, as such, inadmissible. It must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Done in French, then communicated in writing on September 20, 2022, in application of article 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the regulations.

Ilse Freiwirth Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Deputy Registrar President

by **PeterMac** 20.09.22 14:13

Article 6 complaint _ Not even admissible in court. [ They use the words manifestly ill-founded ... and, as such, inadmissible. EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance - Page 2 1f605

]
Article 8 complaint - admissible, but rejected on the simple grounds that the Supreme Court did NOT say they were guilty.

It merely pointed out that the decision to shelve the case was on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

The irony is that the Obiter statement came after they had Appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse its OWN judgment.
They trod on the tail of the serpent, and it turned and bit them.

Just is case there are any McCann supporters reading this, the Obiter said this

"“"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to
obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally
admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling,
based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely
because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was
subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that
Madeleine was kidnapped."
si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. If you had remained silent, people might have thought you were clever. [Sir Humphrey]
Which also raises the question of the intellectual and political abilities of their Legal Team over the years.
Played; 5, Won; 1, Lost ;5

by Verdi 20.09.22 16:27

(d) The content of the statements at issue and their impact

Given the context of the case and as asserted by the domestic courts, the contested statements constituted value judgments based on a sufficient factual basis, namely the material gathered in the course of the investigation and made available to the public. Moreover, this theory had been considered during the criminal investigation and had even led to the applicants' indictment in September 2007.

Moreover, the criminal case had aroused national and international public interest and had given rise to much debate and discussion. As the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court noted, the statements at issue were unquestionably part of a debate of public interest and G.A.'s thesis was therefore one opinion among others.

The criminal case was dismissed by the public prosecutor. In this connection, if the book had been published before the decision to discontinue the proceedings by the public prosecutor's office, the statements at issue could have undermined the applicants' presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, by prejudging the assessment of the facts by the investigating authority. Since these statements were made after the case had been discontinued, the applicants' reputation, guaranteed by Article 8, and the way in which they are perceived by the public are at stake. Public confidence in the functioning of the justice system is also at stake.

Even if the applicants' reputations had been damaged, it was not because of the case put forward by G.A. but because of the suspicions that had been raised against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation and had been the subject of extensive media coverage and debate. This information was widely known to the public, even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book was published.

The book was published three days after the case was closed, which indicates that it was written and printed while the investigation was still under way. G.A. could have prudently added a note alerting the reader to the outcome of the proceedings. However, the absence of such a note alone does not prove bad faith on the part of G.A. Moreover, the documentary does refer to the fact that the case was closed.

After the book was published, the applicants continued their media activities. In particular, they made a documentary about their daughter's disappearance and continued to give interviews to the international media. While the Court understands that the publication of the book undoubtedly caused the applicants anger, anguish and concern, it does not appear that the book or the broadcast of the documentary had any serious impact on their social relations or on their continuing legitimate search for their daughter.

e) The particular circumstances of the case

The Court can agree with the analysis of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It is true that the statements at issue were based on G.A.'s in-depth knowledge of the case by virtue of his position. However, they were already known to the public in view of the extensive media coverage of the case and the fact that the investigation file was made available to the media after the investigation was closed. Thus, the disputed elements are merely the expression of G.A.'s interpretation of a media case that had already been widely discussed. Moreover, it does not appear that G.A. was motivated by any personal animosity towards the applicants.

In the particular circumstances of the present case, a conviction would have had a chilling effect on freedom of expression in matters of public interest.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17372-joana-morais-blog-mccanns-lose-their-appeal-at-the-echr#458233

The BBC reports..

Madeleine McCann's parents lose court challenge over detective's book

By Christy Cooney & Jessica Parker
BBC News

Published

2 hours ago

The parents of Madeleine McCann have lost the latest stage of a battle over legal judgements made about claims from a Portuguese police detective.

Kate and Gerry McCann appealed to the European Court of Human Rights over a Portuguese decision in their libel challenge over Goncalo Amaral's claims.

He alleged in a book that they were involved in their daughter's disappearance.

The McCanns said they were "naturally disappointed" with the court ruling.

Three-year-old Madeleine disappeared from a holiday apartment in the Portuguese holiday resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007.

Mr Amaral was originally the lead detective on the case, but he was removed after criticising British police.

The McCanns were initially placed under investigation by Portuguese police, but were removed as suspects in the case in July 2008.

The couple sued Mr Amaral for libel and were awarded £358,000 in damages by a Portuguese court, but an appeal against the decision was later upheld by the country's Supreme Court.

In their case at the European Court, the couple said the Portuguese courts had failed to uphold their right to a private life and their presumption of innocence.

In a judgement on Tuesday, however, the court said that the couple were already public figures before Mr Amaral's book was published and that any damage to their reputation had been caused by the fact they had been declared suspects, not Mr Amaral's claims.

It also said that, in its ruling, Portugal's Supreme Court had not "made comments implying any guilt... or even suggesting suspicions against" the McCanns, and so their complaint concerning their right to be presumed innocent was "manifestly ill-founded".

In a statement issued through their lawyers, the couple said: "The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductors.

"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."

A German man, Christian Brueckner, has previously been declared an official suspect in the case.

He is serving a prison sentence in Germany for separate offences and had denied involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62967119

eyebrows

by Verdi 20.09.22 16:47

Madeleine McCann's parents lose legal case against Portuguese detective: Joshua Rozenberg discusses

Sep 20, 2022

Boo !!!

by Ladyinred 20.09.22 18:06

Pleased to read this news. Parents will have legal fees to pay, presumably.

It's been an unnecessary distraction.

by crusader 20.09.22 18:41

It was never about Madeleine or their "good" name, it was about the McCann's being insanely jealous that Sn Amaral would dare to make any money from his book about the case.

by mande70 20.09.22 20:52

crusader wrote:It was never about Madeleine or their "good" name, it was about the McCann's being insanely jealous that Sn Amaral would dare to make any money from his book about the case.

so why don't they sue Jon Clarke then? hes attempted to wring the case dry and written more versions of the one story than I've had hot dinners.
All in the name of reputedly attempting to find an abductor[s] that do not exist. Or is it more to keep his gutter rag in the limelight while he makes another few euros to keep his floundering book in the public eye a little while longer.
He must be running out of die hard 'pros' to push the book upon while he bribes them for a 5 star review on AMazon

by crusader 20.09.22 21:17

They have no axe to grind with Clarke, on the contrary, he is doing his best to exonerate them.

They want to hurt Sn Amaral in any way they can and by any means available to them.

In my opinion.

by **sharonl** 20.09.22 22:16

Let's see what happens now. Will they sell the house and use their own funds to pay the court fees etc.? Or will they use the cash that they claim is to be used to search for Madeleine? How precious is Madeleine to them? We may be about to find out.

by **sharonl** 20.09.22 22:56

Madeleine McCann was three years old when she went missing from Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007. To this day, there is no certainty what happened to her.

McCanns ‘case against Portugal’ bombs

By
Natasha Donn
-
20th September 2022

European Court of Human Rights rules ‘no violations on right to reputation or on presumption of innocence’

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann heard today that their case against Portugal – lodged at the European Court of Human Rights after their long-running legal pursuit of former detective Gonçalo Amaral hit a brick wall – has also crashed into the buffers.

A statement from the court explains that the McCanns “alleged that there had been a violation of their right to reputation and to their right to be presumed innocent” in Mr Amaral’s book ‘Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira’, considered by the Portuguese court system as legitimate in terms of freedom of expression.

Says the statement: “The Court considered that, even assuming that the applicants’ reputation had been damaged, this was not on account of the argument put forward by the book’s author but rather 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 prosecutor’s office decided to take no further action in July 2008) and had led to intense media attention and much controversy.

“The information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published.

“It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.

“The Court also considered that in the Supreme Court’s judgments of January and March 2017 – concerning the civil claims lodged by the applicants – it had not made comments implying any guilt on the part of the applicants or even suggesting suspicions against them with regard to the circumstances in which their daughter had disappeared. [/size]

“The applicants’ complaint concerning their right to be presumed innocent was thus manifestly ill-founded”.

According to press reports in the UK – where newspapers continue to erroneously suggest this is a judgement between the McCanns and Gonçalo Amaral – the couple now have three months to appeal against the decision.

At some point, the court costs this legal pursuit has involved will require to be paid. And if the decisions continue in the vein they have taken over the last six years, these costs will fall to the McCanns.

According to the Daily Mail last week, this “may involve them dipping into their Madeleine Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned account, which according to the latest accounts has a balance of £931,500”.

by crusader 20.09.22 23:44

Will they abide by the ruling or will they appeal the decision, my guess is they will appeal.

There is no way they will sell their house, they will use the money in the Madeleine fund and plead for more from the public.

by Verdi 21.09.22 0:52

No I don't think they will appeal, they knew they never had a leg to stand on taking their feeble claims to the ECHR. It's was/is a cosmetic exercise.

One source over the past 24 hours reports..

The McCanns now have three months to appeal against the decision. In a statement, they said they were “naturally disappointed” by the decision but much had changed since they started legal proceedings 13 years ago.

“We took action for one and only one reason: Mr Amaral’s unfounded claims were having a detrimental impact on the search for Madeleine,” they said.

“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).”

If there be any truth in this, it looks like the McCanns have finally thrown in the towel ....

'In a statement, they said they were “naturally disappointed” by the decision but much had changed since they started legal proceedings 13 years ago.'

I think we've seen an end to this wild goose chase.

by Verdi 21.09.22 1:17

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

by **PeterMac** 21.09.22 6:47

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11231591/Gloating-Portuguese-cop-says-McCanns-suspects-disappearance-Madeleine.html

Gloating Portuguese cop says the McCanns 'are still suspects' in the disappearance of Madeleine hours after the family lose libel legal battle against his book

Kate and Gerry McCann lost latest round of legal battle with Goncalo Amaral
Ex-police chief said the couple 'remain suspects' over Maddie's disappearance

Goncalo Amaral laid into Gerry and Kate in a radio interview in his native country after learning they had lost the latest round of their libel battle against his 2008 book.
The McCanns reacted to their court defeat by admitting they were 'naturally disappointed' at the decision but insisting they had no regrets about pursuing their long and arduous legal battle.
They said it meant the focus was now 'rightly' on the search for Madeleine and her abductors.
Hours later, Amaral was on Portuguese radio, insisting: 'Today the court referred once again to an important question.
'The couple are suspects, were suspects and remain suspects. Nothing else happened to the contrary.'
Referring to prime suspect Christian Brueckner who Amaral has claimed in the past is a scapegoat, he added in an interview on Radio Renascenca: 'Thousands even millions of euros have been invested in recent years to create a false suspect.'
Amaral's comments came despite the McCanns having their 'arguido' status lifted by the Portuguese authorities in July 2008.
Portugal's Supreme Court said in 2017 in a previous ruling on the Amaral book that did not mean they had been cleared and did not equate to 'proof of innocence.'
But all new lines of inquiry in recent years, both in Portugal and the UK as well as in Germany where Brueckner is serving a seven-year prison sentence for raping an American pensioner, have excluded any responsibility of the parents.

by **PeterMac** 21.09.22 6:58

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/20/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mccann-lose-latest-stage-libel-battle/

Parents of Madeleine McCann face substantial legal costs after losing libel battle

European Court rejects Kate and Gerry McCann's appeal over allegations in Portuguese detective's 2008 book

ByTelegraph Reporters and Martin Evans, CRIME CORRESPONDENT20 September 2022 • 1:25pm

EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance - Page 2 TELEMMGLPICT000293624085_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpVlberWd9EgFPZtcLiMQf0Rf_Wk3V23H2268P_XkPxc

The parents of Madeleine McCann are facing substantial court costs after losing their 13-year legal battle with the former detective who accused them of involvement in their daughter’s disappearance.
Kate and Gerry McCann sued Goncalo Amaral over allegations in his 2008 book, The Truth of the Lie, eventually losing the case when the Portuguese Supreme Court ruled against them.
The couple, whose daughter disappeared from the resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007, appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - arguing that Portuguese authorities had breached their right to a private and family life and also their right to be presumed innocent.
But in a ruling handed down on Tuesday, the court in Strasbourg rejected the couple's arguments, finding that there was extensive publicity around the claims before Mr Amaral published them in his book.

The ECHR found that Mr Amaral's claims had not had a negative effect on the McCann's "social relations" or their campaign to find their daughter.
The court also said that the McCanns' right to respect for their private and family life had to be balanced against Mr Amaral's freedom of expression.
The couple’s claim over their "right to be presumed innocent" was also rejected, because the court said Mr Amaral's book was published three days after the decision to take no action against them.
In a statement issued through their lawyers the couple expressed disappointment at the judgment but said they did not intend to appeal the decision.

The ruling means they could now face substantial legal costs which had been on hold while the ruling was pending
They said: “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.

by crusader 21.09.22 8:18

Let's hope they do drop it.

There is still plenty of sympathy for them on GB news.

These sympathetic people who feel sorry for the McCann's who made a little mistake and payed a big price, should remember it wasn't one night out, it was nearly a week that very young children and babies were left alone for hours by their parents to go out with their friends who also left their children unattended.

These actions alone are irresponsible and totally selfish without anything happening to the children, yet the McCann's are seen as victims and should be pitied.

Where does all this screwed up thinking come from.

by Guest 21.09.22 8:33

a unanimous verdict, about all decisions of the court, that left little margin to expectations of a different outcome in the grand chamber.

one of the dutch papers, algemeen dagblad, still goes on with they have been cleared of all blame after the case was rested.

you would think people who use language as their profession, at least are able to read it. and as it is a verdict of law, you can quote as you like or want from it. there is simply no legal paper that cleared the mccanns around, it is a wishful thinking of the mccanns, but as we could read, that would not make it true.
so saying the mccanns are cleared of any blame in what has happened to their own daughter is a lie.

and the next lie is that it was this verdict that have to make the mccans to pay up to the courts for the court costs and the cost of defense for the other party. that was already in place after the highest court of portugal made their verdict. this verdict would not interfere with that. this was only a separate claim against the portuguese government and they lost.

and the cost of all the court cases, not just two and the echr, but they won the first outing, and lost the next 4 and also the separate case before the courts of the echr.

even gb news is just the usual sloppy news making player, anyone who gets it out as killed their own child, did not do their home work, of course it is standard to look into a possible killing by a parent, because the parents are usually the predators a child has to fear. but outside that standard working it as a theory during any investigation, it never was amaral who used it in writing or sayings about this case.

freedom of speech and freedom of the press = media today are very much non existing in the uk around this case. the mccanns give a new meaning into the words chinese whispers.

i can not get my head around this, you put blinkers on the press and media, and also a quite sharpe bit to steer the public. i can understand something like you can not write or talk about project mccann, but i can not understands, you can not talk or write something negative about some people but you are allowed to tell porkies on a grand scale.

and it is for all of us to see that the mccanns never been the good people they pretend to be. daddy did sign of his statement and that can not be any glitch in a translation, not at that moment or any other moment, because that is signed of by daddy in his next statement. but daddy was not even 5 minutes in and told his first proven lie, it was even daddy himself who did the proving himself. and he did knew it, because he was present when the missus told her version. between his first statement and the next, where he indeed told he was mistaken there have been days, days he had continuous access to police officers, so no reason to keep him of retraction and changing his mistakes, but all together it means this was not a mistake, but a lie.

so he send a police force and a lot of assisting civilians around the bushes. this can never been from iq impairments, the guy that feared for his reputation became even a professor.

how can anyone ever get trust in people who start of with a hard lie, that is a simple answer you do not. you always will hear that tiny whisper; 'is it true what he tells now.'
this was the guy that had already hold phone calls about telling of pedo rings before that statement was made. he did not mind to slow down the finding of his daughter, that by his own words was taken by pedo's.

that have been the mccanns that wanted to be cleared of anything, well they just blown up that idea in every head, that had a official standing in that case at that moment. and they never did act to undo any suspicion, not by not having a better fitted appearance, or becoming just nicer people, because that is not at play in any case, they did incriminated themselves by their own free actions and stories. they had their chances and blew it on their very own merits.

so they did all those court episodes because they are mad as hell because the people who handled the case found out they had no urge to be trustful, and had no respect for their own offspring as well. the choose the route of pay back time, but they loose it all.

so they have to pay even a lot more, first all their own cost of their lawyers, from all cases and also the court costs of the cases before the courts in portugal, and legal fees of the defendant. the last usually will be calculated as a set number of euro's per hour and a maximum depending on the kind of case.
the echr is a free run, but you can not do it without a lawyer in tow, so these costs had to be paid also.

they never have been cleared, the have been let of the hook, but the could always be caught the next time.

and we know the portuguese law system works.

and i do hope that that system has some heavy head nerds in law, that could work around that resting a case and cut down the arguido status, would mean, the arguido status is also only paused, and that time in between the resting case and becoming active again on the same once arguido has to be started ticking again. as was once already promoted by moito flores.

i still do think accidental death is what happened, seen as not the result of their own direct actions, there are also indirect actions possible, but they could not have changed the course during and after the incident has its route taken. that part of the mccann version i think is true. and i do think the portuguese police also works from that, so there never was a conclusion that got into killing your child. but i do think the mccanns do know very well what happened with what result, and they are able enough to choose their own way in all that happened next.

so it is always nice when the courts tell us, the public, it is okay to think different about this story, so i do not see a fair reason why the press and media tries to influence us with untrue facts and stories. if you are not able to tell us the truth, you have also the choice to keep your fingers of a keyboard and your mouths shut.

by **PeterMac** 21.09.22 10:18

Just so that this forum is not accused of waiting until the judgment and then pretending it knew all along what the outcome had to be : – – – –
This is from 2021

" by PeterMac 22.03.21 12:41

AN UPDATE.
In their case presented to the ECHR in 2017 the McCanns (& Healy) sought to rely on two main legal precedents.
Axel Springer v Germany, and Larrañaga Arando and others v. Spain.
The latter case had not been decided at that point, (so in legal terms is was NOT a precedent).

And so it has turned out. Larrañaga Arando et autres c. Espagne was declared Inadmissible in Jun 2019.

The facts in Larrañaga are beyond belief. Relatives of ETA terrorists were seeking compensation for their deaths at the hands of other terrorist groups. Not surprisingly it was chucked out, but not before lawyers had no doubt added to their own pension funds.

The facts in Axel Springer are curiously relevant to the McCann's case - but not in the direction they would want us to believe. Axel Springer, a German publishing company was sued for breach of an injunction preventing publication of the details of an arrest at the Munich Beer festival for possession of cocaine of a TV star. They paid the €1000, and then a further €5000 when they continued to publish the story.

The ECHR held; [forgive me for pasting the lot, because it is important]
firstly, that the published articles concerned the arrest and conviction of an actor, that is public judicial facts that could be considered to present a degree of general interest. Second, the actor was sufficiently well known to qualify as a public figure and, even though the nature of the offence was such that it would probably not have been reported on had it been committed by an ordinary individual, the fact that the actor had been arrested in public and had actively sought the limelight by revealing details about his private life in a number of interviews meant that his legitimate expectation that his private life would be effectively protected was reduced. As regards the third criterion – how the information was obtained and whether it was reliable – the first article about the actor’s arrest had a sufficient factual basis as it was based on information provided by the public prosecutor’s office and the truth of the information related in both articles was not in dispute between the parties. The applicant company had not acted in bad faith: not only had it received confirmation of the information from the prosecuting authorities, there was nothing to suggest that it had not undertaken a balancing exercise between its interest in publishing and the actor’s right to respect for his private life before concluding, in the light of all the circumstances, that it did not have sufficiently strong grounds for believing it should preserve the actor’s anonymity. As to the content, form and consequences of the publications, the articles had not revealed details about the actor’s private life, but had mainly concerned the circumstances of his arrest and the outcome of the criminal proceedings. There had been no disparaging comments or unsubstantiated allegations. The applicant company had not challenged a court injunction prohibiting it from publishing photographs and it had not been shown that the publication of the articles had resulted in serious consequences for the actor. As regards the final criterion, while the sanctions imposed on the applicant company were lenient, they had nevertheless been capable of having a chilling effect and were not justified in the light of the factors referred to above. Accordingly, the restrictions imposed on the company had not been reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the actor’s private life.
Article 41: EUR 17,734.28 in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to penalties and costs incurred in the domestic proceedings less the two penalty payments of EUR 5,000.

In my humble opinion there are some strong parallels there with McCann & Healy v Amaral which we recall the McCanns LOST in the Appeal and then the Supreme Court. The same court which said at the time it had considered precedents from the ECHR.

Even more odd are the other two cases apparently relied on by the McCanns.
In von Hannover there was found to be NO violation of s8. when details of Prince Rainier of Monaco's final illness were published
In Bédat v Switzerland the journalist was penalised for publishing details of an incident under active investigation. The ECHR held: that there was NO violation of his rights under s.10 because the penalty (suspended sentence replaced by fine) had been " imposed for breaching the secrecy of a criminal investigation and its purpose, in the instant case, was to protect the proper functioning of the justice system and the rights of the accused to a fair trial and respect for his private life."

In other words, as the world knows, you are not allowed to publish details of an ACTIVE case.
How this affects the McCanns whose case has been shelved since 2008 is not entirely clear.

Is this their second Wisconsin v Zapata moment ?

REFS:
[url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["\"MCCANN ET HEALY c. PORTUGAL\""],"itemid":["001-207898"]}]https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22\%22MCCANN%20ET%20HEALY%20c.%20PORTUGAL\%22%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-207898%22]}[/url]

}]https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-12570%22]}
}]https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-106%22]}
}]https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-98%22]}
}]https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-11094%22]}