'BITTER BLOW' Madeleine McCann’s parents’ 12-year fight to silence ex-cop who claims their daughter is dead suffers setback

'BITTER BLOW' Madeleine McCann’s parents’ 12-year fight to silence ex-cop who claims their daughter is dead suffers setback
Exclusive

Tracey Kandohla

7 Feb 2021, 17:06Updated: 7 Feb 2021, 17:06

MADELEINE McCann’s parents have been rocked by another setback in their long-running battle to silence a former cop who claims their daughter is dead.

Anguished Kate and Gerry must now wait until spring to find out if the highest court in the land finally allows their legal appeal to go ahead or throws it out.

The couple had been due to be told by the end of last year but now face an agonising wait in their civil action which has been “dragging on” for nearly 12 years.

If they lose their right to appeal they will be ordered to pay Goncalo Amaral’s court costs and possible damages which could wipe out the entire Find Maddie Fund.

A spokesperson for the European Court of Human Rights told The Sun Online today: "A judge is due to rule of the admissibility of their application over the coming months.

"It is still under consideration and it is expected to be notified to the Portuguese Government by the end of April."

A close pal of Kate and Gerry said: "It drags on and on. They go one step forward then two two back. It’s caused them so much anguish over the years and they just want to draw a line under it.

"It’s never been about seeking damages but simply trying to stop false and malicious accusations being spouted. They still have no idea if their appeal in their fight for justice will be granted, or not."

The latest legal hiccup comes as the McCanns vowed in a New Year message to carry on searching for their daughter as they revealed the coronavirus crisis had been hampering progress in the case.

If the couple win the next stage in their bitter feud they will be able to continue their ‘fight for justice’ against the state of Portugal which ruled against them in a shock Supreme Court hearing in Lisbon four years ago.

It is based on their civil feud with former Portuguese police chief Amaral, who claimed in his best seller book that Maddie’s parents had accidentally killed their daughter and disposed of her body.

In ensuing claims and appeals, Mr Amaral was cleared of any wrongdoing which led to the McCanns’ latest action being filed against the country’s top court rather than the ex officer.

The ECHR spokesperson added: "The appeal is still under consideration. There will be a preliminary examination by the court regarding the admissibility of the application.

"If the appeal is ruled inadmissible, the applicants will not be able to challenge the decision. The court will close the case and the file will be destroyed.

"If however the court decides the appeal is admissible, on further examination it would make a judgment that either there has been no violation of the Convention or a person’s rights have been violated.

"The appeal had been expected to he heard by the end of 2020 but time scales vary depending on many factors and the court takes into account the importance and urgency of the issues."

Under the application - one of almost 57,000 pending - titled McCann and Healy v Portugal (Maddie’s dad's name and mum’s maiden name) the current state of proceedings simply states: ‘Application awaiting first judicial decision.'

Retired detective Mr Amaral, 64 - branded by Maddie’s mum as "a thorn in our side" - won the latest round in a fierce feud which the couple, after careful consideration, decided to challenge.

The McCanns had won their first round but lost on appeal before finally lodging an application with the ECHR in Strasbourg, France, in July 2017.

Three-year-old Maddie vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in Portugal nearly 14 years ago in May 2007.

She had been left sleeping alone with her younger twin siblings while her parents were dining in a nearby tapas restaurant with pals.

Heart doctor Gerry and ex GP turned medical worker Kate, both 52, of Rothley, Leicestershire, cling onto a glimmer of hope that their daughter could still be alive. She would now be aged 17.

If they lose their right to appeal they will be ordered to pay Mr Amaral’s court costs and possible compensation for damages against his reputation.

It could wipe out the entire Find Maddie Fund - which now stands at around £750,000 - set up with public donations to continue the search privately once the Met Police hunt is finally shelved.

The McCann source said: "If this happened it would be a bitter blow but Kate and Gerry would keep their heads up and carry on searching.

"It has been there fight for justice but there can be no more appeals by either side. This one is the final challenge."

Kate and Gerry first issued a writ against Mr Amaral for libel in June 2009 after he claimed in his 2008 book 'The Truth of the Lie’ that Maddie had died accidentally and they had faked her abduction.

In 2015 Mr Amaral, who led the initial bungled hunt for Maddie before being thrown off the case, was ordered by the court to pay the couple £360,000 in damages with interest of at least £76,000 for his alleged slurs which the McCanns described as "false, malicious, defamatory and hurtful."

They also said his accusations could hamper the worldwide hunt for Maddie because if people believed she was dead they would stop searching.

But Mr Amaral successfully appealed the decision before any money exchanged hands.

The country’s Supreme Court found against the McCanns in January 2017, stating in their 76-page ruling that they had not "successfully proved their innocence".

The devastated couple lodged an appeal six months later with the ECHR

In June last year German Police sensationally named jailed sex offender Christian B - who cannot be fully named due to German privacy laws - as a new key suspect in her abduction.

Prosecutors recently said they were "very confident" of charging him and said the public "would reach the same conclusion if they knew the evidence we had."

German national Christian B is currently behind bars for drug offences and raping an American pensioner in the same resort the Brit youngster was snatched from.

He has not yet been quizzed over Maddie’s disappearance and maintains through his lawyer he had no involvement.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13975731/madeleine-mccann-parents-silence-ex-cop-setback/

'It's never been about seeking damages'... pfft

Don't you just love Olive Oyl's choice of words .... 'their bitter fued'.

It's not and never was a feud. It is a callous vindictive attack by the two prime suspects in the case of a missing child, their daughter, against the principle Portuguese police officer who moved heaven and earth to solve the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Has not the British authorities interfered with the Portuguese investigation, I remain convinced the case would have been solved in 2007 and we wouldn't be here nearly fourteen years later, forever seeking justice in the name of Madeleine McCann.

I salute you with two fingers Olive!

Is that what this CB patsy nonsense is all about? Frame a patsy before the final appeal so that they have something to back up their claims of abduction and innocence?

But there is a nasty awkward stumbling block there, in fact there is more than one nasty awkward stumbling block.

a)  The alleged case against Snr Amaral won't even get past the front desk of the ECHR.  They haven't a leg to stand on, I can't imagine why this nonsense continues.

b)  The PJ investigation is documented in it's entirety.  The bits left out for public consumption would certainly be made available to a court of law.

c)  The evidence is there for all to to see.  Bravado counts for nothing - all wind and wee-wee.

d)  The media coverage of the case has been a circus since the beginning of May 2007 to the present day.  Nothing new there.

e)  Clarence Mitchell is no longer a voice to be heard nor believed - for the more discerning he never was but it appears he's still on a retainer as and when required.  He's in too deep to get out.

f)  Dogs don't lie - asleep or awake.

g)  The Sun tabloid is a staunch supporter of the McCann faction.  The evidence is indelibly printed for fraternity and eternity for all to see.

h)  Netflix!

It's all about discrediting the Portuguese police - always was always will be.  Look deep within, every story that has been created to 'pin the tail on the donkey', you will find strong criticism of the way the PJ handled every case dug-up to try and reinforce the McCann innocence and abduction mantra.

Go back to the beginning, 3rd/4th May 2007 - the rest is window dressing. Don't be distracted.

Verdi wrote:'BITTER BLOW' Madeleine McCann’s parents’ 12-year fight to silence ex-cop

MADELEINE McCann’s parents have been rocked by another setback in their long-running battle to silence a former cop...
Anguished Kate and Gerry must now wait until spring to find out if the highest court in the land finally allows their legal appeal to go ahead or throws it out...A spokesperson for the European Court of Human Rights told The Sun Online today: "A judge is due to rule of the admissibility of their application over the coming months.

Having launched an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)(on behalf of another) back in late 1981, which eventually succeeded in 1987, I am familiar with their arcane procedures.

There are FOUR stages to go through before the case can even reach a final hearing.

Whether the case is 'admissible' or not is only STAGE ONE!

This involves e.g. consideration e.g. of whether (a) the time-limits for bringing an application have been met (b) whether they had exhausted 'domestic remedies', i.e. whether they took every possible legal step in Portugal first, before approaching the ECHR, and (3) whether their grievance actually comes within any of the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Only if the McCanns can satisfy all of these criteria can their case lumber on to Stage 2, where junior lawyers and ECHR clerks examine whether their case 'has merit'.

If yes, then the matter goes to senior judges where there are two further stages to go through before the matter can be considered for the final hearing of "McCanns v. The Government of Portugal".

Even then, the ECHR doesn't have the legal authority to reverse the decision of any national government, or its senior courts. Their powers are limited to 
(a) issuing a declaration that the complainant's human rights have been breached and, if so, 
(b) ordering the government (in this case Portugal) to pay a fine to the aggrieved complainant

Tony Bennett wrote:If yes, then the matter goes to senior judges where there are two further stages to go through before the matter can be considered for the final hearing of "McCanns v. The Government of Portugal".

And there lies the clue - in a nutshell.

The media coverage that trundles on year after year maintain the case taken to the ECHR is against Gonçalo Amaral but the more discerning observers know that not to be factual.

The case, as you rightly point out, will be McCann v. The Government of Portugal.

Whistling in the wind springs to mind. Why they, the McCanns, are prologing this futile exercise remains to be seen - perhaps. I wonder if it's to keep Snr Amaral's profile up-front, you know, should anyone start to take him seriously. Aside from the trolls of course!

The McCanns and their extensive support network have moved heaven and earth to demonise Gonçalo Amaral's name. That would appear to be their primary mission.

Of course their actions won't carry any weight with the ECHR but it profits their campaign of innocence to belittle Snr Amaral and the PJ in general.

Kate McCann's book alone is riddled with spiteful commentary about Snr Amaral and the PJ.

F*****g tossers !!! Wasn't that her choice of words? The book, Madeleine's legacy dedicated to her and her two siblings?

No shame!

http://app.echr.coe.int/SOP/index.aspx?lg=en
enter the number 57195/17
and you get
McCann and Healy v. Portugal

Thus

Thanks to Textusa for spotting the update.
 
The original search response has now become:
 
 
 
Searching the ECHR HUDOC site now gives:





 
It is all in French, but the links to the cases in the questions are all there if you want to examine them.
 
Google translate gives this:
 
Communicated on January 14, 2021 Posted on February 1, 2021
 
FOURTH SECTION Application No. 57195/17 Gerald Patrick MCCANN and Kate Marie HEALY against Portugal introduced on July 28, 2017
 
SUBJECT OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations made by GA, a former inspector of the judicial police, in a book and a documentary broadcast on the television channel T., then put on sale in the form of a DVD, about the involvement of the applicants in the disappearance of their daughter, which occurred on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal. It also concerns the civil liability action brought by the applicants against G.A., its publisher and the T. television channel, after which they were dismissed.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants assert that the allegations made by GA in the book and the documentary in question infringed their right to respect for their private life and their right to the presumption of innocence. They complain that the domestic courts have failed to balance the interests at stake in accordance with the criteria set out in the Court's case-law.
Furthermore, still under the angle of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, they argue that the reasoning contained in the decisions delivered on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court in the outcome of the civil liability action also violated their right to the presumption of innocence. 
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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? In particular, did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations aimed at guaranteeing the applicants the right to respect for their "private life", within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?
In addition, in their decisions, did the domestic courts carry out an adequate balance, in accordance with the criteria established by the Court's case-law, between the applicants' right to respect for their private life and the right of the parties? opponents of freedom of expres​sion(see, Von Hannover (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-113, ECHR 2012, Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 89-95, and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no.56925 / 08, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2016)? 
 
2. Has the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention been respected in the present case having regard to the reasoning contained in the decisions handed down on 31 January and 21 March 2017 by the Supreme Court (see, Allen v. The United Kingdom [GC], no 25424/09, § 94, ECHR 2013)?
 
ANNEX List of applicants No Firstname name year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1 Gerald Patrick MCCANN 1968 British Leichestershire 2 Kate Marie HEALY 1968 British Leichestershire

Make of it what you will! 
 
These are the cases highlighted in the above report. I’ve tried to pull out the basic case (my thoughts in brackets immediately under the titles, but I may be wrong) & the conclusions reached, but frankly am little the wiser.
 
I reckon we’ll all be long gone by the time this reaches any sort of conclusion.
 
CASE OF AXEL SPRINGER AG AGAINST GERMANY
39954/08


(Injunction granted against the paper to prevent reporting of a story. Much of what was claimed seems confirmed and the injunction was largely unfair) 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 …………………………………..
 
Larrañaga Arando and Others v. Spain (applications nos. 73911/16, 233/17, 3086/17, and 5155/17) and Martínez Agirre and Others v. Spain (nos. 75529/16 and 79503/16)


(State compensation was refused for the deaths of members (?) of a terrorist organization, killed by another terrorist organization – Application held to be inadmissible, although I don’t really understand the last paragraph))


 The European Court of Human Rights has declared, by a majority, the applications inadmissible. The decision is final.
 
Both cases concerned the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) about being refused State compensation for the killing of their relatives by terrorist groups.
 
The Court held that the provision of the Convention the applicants had relied on (Article 6 § 2) did not apply to their cases. In particular, there had been no link between any criminal charge brought in Spain against the applicants’ relatives for membership of ETA and the administrative authorities’ and courts’ decisions to refuse to pay further State compensation for their deaths. 


………………………………..


Von Hannover ["40660/08"]}]40660/0860641/08"]}]60641/08
 
(Complaint against German courts refusal to grant an injunction to stop publication of photos – admissible, but no violation of Article 8)
 
1.  The case originated in two applications (nos. }]40660/08 and }]60641/08) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Monegasque national, Princess Caroline von Hannover, and a German national, Prince Ernst August von Hannover (“the applicants”), on 22 August and 15 December 2008 respectively.


 
 

 
 

 
 
CASE OF BÉDAT v. SWITZERLAND
 (Application no."56925/08"]}]56925/08
 
(Appeal against fine for publishing information relating to criminal investigation – no violation of Article 10)
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF ALLEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
 (Application no. "25424/09"]}]25424/09
 
(Complaint against refusal to award compensation following the quashing of a conviction as unsafe – admissible, but no violation of Article 6.2)
 
 
 
 
 
 

Many thanks for all that research.
The ECHR. (the Convention) was drafted in 1950 immediately after WWII, in an effort to prevent tyranny where a country passes laws and then applies them, which result in oppression of one form or another. 
The ECHR, ( The Court) was established under the convention.
And it is worth repeating that the Court is not interested in the "facts" of the case.
Only whether the decision taken by the court in question is in accordance with the Convention.

It is not even interested whether the decision was "right'.  
That was a matter for the Supreme Court of the nation in question.