**updated** Appeal rejected. McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court's decision

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:Are the Mccanns just buying time ?

Yes.
Surely Duarte would have advised them of the likely outcome, as is her job?
The longer they buy time the longer Dr Amaral continues to suffer.
I can't say too much, but what they continue to do to Dr Amaral is nothing short of barbaric.
And when it's his turn, I hope he hits them with as much force as they've dished out to him (and his wife and children).
All of that for the sake of a book?
Nah, they're like a couple of pitbulls out to kill a kitten.
To think the NHS harbours so-called doctors such as these is frightening.

A book titled - The Truth of the Lie !!!

Verdi wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:Are the Mccanns just buying time ?

Well, they're certainly not buying his book are they ?

The Truth of the Lie by Goncalo Amaral

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Don't be too sure - I expect they had to buy a copy of his book and spend lots of money having it translated before they sued him. Snigger...! :D

Titter ye not!

Michael Wright's testimony under oath before a Lisbon Court..

ID [Isabel Duarte - McCanns lawyer] - In which circumstances did the McCanns learn about the book and the documentary?


MW  [Michael Wright  - Kate McCann's cousin's husband] - says they knew before the shelving of the case, that a book would be published. About the documentary, they were told it had been broadcast on TV in April 2009.


ID - When did they read the book and watch the documentary?


MW – They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008. They heard about the documentary in March/April 2009. There was a big campaign in Praia da Luz, they needed people to support them and the documentary had a negative effect on that.





ETA:  AnnaEsse who translated the book into English should sue them for a £100,000 translation fee.

Wow - AnnaEsse had translated the whole thing by August 2008 when it was only published in July?

Anne Guedes has added a further note to the annulment request documents on the Pamalam site relating to the legal fees:
 
Note 14:
 
This document was published on PJGA on March 18, but Gonçalo Amaral legal team is supposed to have been emailed it on February 16. The referred receipt of justice fees isn’t appended.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So, this 'annulment request' of the PSC 'judgement' is exactly, ONLY 'that'..............a 'request'

Not 'legally binding' or 'statutory' part of the Portuguese 'judicial process'

'request' DENIED!

Next!

jeanmonroe wrote:So, this 'annulment request' of the PSC 'judgement' is ONLY 'that'..............a 'request'

Not 'legally binding' or statutory part of the Portuguese 'judicial process'

'request' DENIED!

Next!

Exactly. Just another storm in a tea cup from the McC camp.
The Libel case was a civil case and the decision by the Judges in the SC made in regard to Portugese citizens right to freedom of expression/opinion, and upholding the laws of that country for all its citizens.The Judges can't change the Portugese laws to suit the McC's. And they found in favor of GA based upon those laws. The rest is all fluff.

If the request was put in a few days late then that's it surely?

As JeanM has posted it's a request - request denied because they ran out of time?

Next.

The legal assistant who signed the request off - why?   I thought Duarte was the main solicitor.

IMO though the wording of the request has been done by some top light legal guys - maybe that's why the request was late?

Whatever, late is late in any language surely?

Gonçalo Amaral was 'notified of the request' for the annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling. As there is always the right to adversarial proceedings, Gonçalo Amaral CAN respond, saying 'that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice does not warrant ANY rectification or criticism.'
--------------------------------------------

What's the LEGAL 'score' at the moment?

Oh, that's right

GA 3  McS 0

Going to 'extra time' now?

'.......and the 'legal ball' is crossed deep into the penalty area, and GA 'slams' it into the Mcs net......................FOOOUR -NIL!'

I can't read Portuguese, but apparently the request for annulment has been rejected.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I can't read Portuguese, but apparently the request for annulment has been rejected.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No wonder the facebook page has gone off air again. Pam Gurney's been on duty. She won't be in her usual sunny mood when she hears the latest from Planet Sanity.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I can't read Portuguese, but apparently the request for annulment has been rejected.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

My Portuguese friend says We have won !!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I can't read Portuguese, but apparently the request for annulment has been rejected.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Copied from the

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice]
Descritivo: [description]
Tabela da Sessão de 21-03-2017 10:00 [ table/chart of the sitting/session on 21 March 2017 at 10.00am]
(1ª SECÇÃO) [[section 1]

Recorrente [applicant] : Kate Marie Healy Mccann
Recorrente: Gerald Patrick Mccann
Recorrido: [applied against] Gonçalo Sousa Amaral
Recorrido: Editora Guerra e Paz-Lda

decisão = [decision]
Indeferida = [rejected]

The document is in chart form. There are no comments or observations of any kind.

Sorted!

Supreme Court of Justice
Descriptive:
Session Table 21-03-2017 10:00
(1st SECTION)

Applicant: Kate Marie Healy Mccann
Applicant: Gerald Patrick Mccann
Course: Gonçalo Sousa Amaral
Course: Editora Guerra e Paz-Lda

Decision = [decision]
Rejected = [rejected]

Sorted!

I think that’s one word we’ll all remember from now on!
 
‘Indeferida’.
 
Come on Tracey, get typing.

Doug D wrote:I think that’s one word we’ll all remember from now on!
 
‘Indeferida’.
 
Come on Tracey, get typing.

In case she can't see lower case, please folks allow me a 'HEART-WRENCHING' shouty moment...

"INDEFERIDA, TRACEY! IN-DE-FE-RIDA!!!"

I wonder how much this appeal cost in terms of lawyers' fees. No doubt taken from the Madeleine Fund, No Stone Unturned, and all that.

“Textusa 21 Mar 2017, 17:25:00

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mr Amaral has won

YESSSSSS”


“Indeferido” means rejected.

Now, we are curious as to what the reaction on the British media will be. Any bets?

Fantastic news!  I'm elated for Dr Amaral. 

I do hope he can go from strength to strength now!

So are they finally going to have to pay up now? And pleeeaasssee can Snr. Amaral sue them back now?!

My friend has written this which is being shared on the facebook groups.......

In very concise terms and forgive me for any imprecision.
Mr and Mrs McCann brought a law suit for damages against Mr Gonçalo Amaral , his publishers and a newspaper. They claimed that Mr Amaral’s book caused them distress and it harmed their good name. They required 1.2 million Euros in damages and the banning of the book and documentary.
The First Instance Court Case took a long time and the decision was partially in favour of the McCanns. We say partially because the judge decided to only consider Mr and Mrs McCann as parties and did not award the 850 K to their 3 children. The judge ordered that GA and the other parties would pay 500K to the McCanns. The judge also decided on banning the book and the DVD.
The reasoning : The Judge decided there was a conflict of rights Ç Freedom of expres​sion(GA) and the right to a good name (McCanns) . The judge decided for the right to a good name based on the fact that it considered that Mr Amaral had breached a duty of reserve while writing the book since he was a retired detective and still had a link to the PJ.
Mr Amaral appealed to the Relaçao Court and won. The collective of judges decided that freedom of expression would win .
The McCanns appealed to the Supreme Court. In their appeal they invoked that they were entitled to benefit from the presumption of innocence and that the archival dispatch had cleared them.
The Collective of judges decided that an archival dispatch does not clear them or innocent them as indeed it does not say they are guilty. In other words, the appellants could not claim they had been exonerated /Cleared by the archival dispatch. At the same time the judges refer and well that their presumption of innocence was not affected. As a note, the presumption of innocence assists any suspect in a criminal /penal process. This is ,naturally, a civil law suit for damages, judged and appealed in a civil court and it bears no effects on the Appellants’ guilt or innocence. In other words they benefit from the presumption of innocence, as do all arguidos but they cannot claim that the archival dispatch has declared them innocent.
The Appelants lost the appeal and submitted a request for annulment based on a technicality . That the Archival dispatch had been done with basis of Penal Process Code article 277.º, no.1, and that the Supreme Court's ruling states they were not exonerated within the no.2 of that same article. They ignored the whole reasoning behind both the archival dispatch and behind the Supreme court Decision. The request for annulment was today...INDEFERIDO. REJECTED: GA won, his patrimony will be freed and his book still free to go on the shelves.

The appelants (McCanns) will have to pay judicial costs (court and lawyers fees) . I would like to stress that Mr Amaral does not get one Cent from the McCanns. HE may get some of his own lawyers costs refunded but that is not clear yet. What he does get , he gets his life and his assets that were frozen back.
You can check the whole process on the 
PJGA link below


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So, in a nutshell, the Supreme Court’s decision was never about whether the McCanns were/are guilty or innocent.  It was about Dr Amaral’s freedom of speech over the McCanns “right to honour”. The SC has made this clear, and as with everyone suspected of committing a crime, they are innocent until found guilty in a court of law. That hasn’t been taken away from the McCanns, by the SC ruling. However, it was totally wrong for the McCanns to claim they had been cleared of all guilt, when the case was archived, because that was NOT the case. There just wasn’t enough evidence against them for a successful prosecution.  

 

So, based on the above, there doesn’t appear to be anywhere else for the McCanns to go.

 

Game, set and match to Dr Amaral!

 

 

 

 
“The odds of telling the truth may set you free when the odds of telling a lie are against you.”
― [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oh there's going to be fury , punching walls , gnashing​ of teeth , breaking beds and lots of bad language in Rothley​ tonight​ ! 

I wouldn't​ like to be a neighbour ! 

Dr Amaral gets his life back​ , his​ assets​ released​ . He and his family can relax​ again  


Our Tracey is going to​ be so busy​ tonight​ , I don't think " furious and heartbroken " is going to be enough​ this time​    


I predict a riot or a meltdown​     

I an 'now' OFFICIALLY..........a 'sage'!!

Thank you, thankyou.

yesterday@ 1:54pm

My only 'query' would be: Did they 'file' their 9 page 'complaint/appeal' in 'time'?

It is 'dated' 16th Feb 2017 which was 16 days AFTER the PSC 'judgement'.

I 'read' that they ONLY had 10 days, from the 'judgement', in which to 'submit' any 'appeal'

Is their 'appeal/complaint' even 'valid'? (in 'law')

If 'filed' outside the statutory 'time limit' (10 days?) will it even 'be heard'?

Or, is this 'latest' erm 'diversion' all only 'for the show'?
----------------------------------------------------

by jeanmonroe Yesterday at 7:54 pm
So, this 'annulment request' of the PSC 'judgement' is exactly, ONLY 'that'..............a 'request'

Not 'legally binding' or 'statutory' part of the Portuguese 'judicial process'

'request' DENIED!

Next!
--------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonroe Today at 11:57 am
Gonçalo Amaral was 'notified of the request' for the annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling. As there is always the right to adversarial proceedings, Gonçalo Amaral CAN respond, saying 'that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice does not warrant ANY rectification or criticism.'
--------------------------------------------

What's the LEGAL 'score' at the moment?

Oh, that's right

GA 3 McS 0

Going to 'extra time' now?

'.......and the 'legal ball' is crossed deep into the penalty area, and GA 'slams' it into the Mcs net......................FOOOUR -NIL!'
--------------------------------

GA doesn't 'get his honour back'.......................he never lost it, in the first place!

jeanmonroe wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Indeferida fits quite nicely to the tune of Guantanamera. I've  been singing it whilst stirring my risotto and toasting Goncalo with a glass of bubbly.

To Rocky. Your good health Sir.

I still 'believe' they 'diliberately' filed the 'request' OUTSIDE of, and AFTER the 10 day 'statutory' time 'limit' for submitting 'anything' against the PSC judgement.

It was, imo, 'ALL FOR THE SHOW!'

jta: OG/UK 'Government' were NOT 'expecting' the McCan'ts SPECTACULAR 'annulment' FAIL to be erm, y'know, so 'swift!', imo.

How to Make an Application to the European Court of Human Rights
Any member of the public concerned about their legal rights who has exhausted all legal routes in the UK can apply to the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is not straightforward and can take years for a case to be heard. But, for many, it is the last chance to see justice done. Countless individuals have used their right of access to this Court to prevent continued injustice and to change the law in their home country.
Whether for or against the controversial influence that the European Court of Human Rights has, it is the last possible stage of appeal having gone through the domestic legal system to prevent or remedy a human rights violation. This guide shows how to apply to the court step-by-step and directs you to the relevant resources available.

What Will This Guide Cover?

• The circumstances where a person may want to bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights
  
• An overview of the application process
  
• How to fill in the application form
  
• The criteria for the application to appear before the court
  
• An explanation of what ‘interim measures’ means
  

What Questions Does This Guide Answer?

• Why make an application to the European Court of Human Rights?
  
• Where do I find the application form?
  
• How do I make an application to the European Court of Human Rights?
  
• What must I do for my case to have a chance of success?
  
• What are the incentives for bringing a case to this court?
  
• What remedies can I get?
  

Why Make an Application?

You could make an application to the European Court if you feel your human rights are being violated.
Importantly, for the Court to consider a complaint as valid, that human right must be protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): other legal instruments and conventions are not a valid basis for a complaint. So, it is important you know which article(s) of the ECHR you are relying on in your application. The ECHR is available [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The ECHR protects a wide range of issues which members of the public generally understand to be human rights. The court has also, for over half a century, added lots of layers of interpretation to the short text, and continues to do so. By looking at the Convention itself, guidance from the Court, and consulting previous case law, it should be clear whether you have an argument that a human right protected under the ECHR has been violated.

The Application Process: Step by Step

The first step is to fill in the application form properly. Then you have to wait while it goes through various administrative filters at the European Court. It is then assigned an ‘admissibility hearing’. An admissibility hearing is where it is decided whether the case should be put before the Judges of the Court by checking whether the form has been completed properly and the legal issues have met the admissibility criteria.
Assuming the case passes through the admissibility hearing, it can then be assigned a ‘chamber hearing’ where 7 Judges of the Court will consider the ‘merits’ of the case (in other words, discuss the factual and legal issues of the particular case). Depending on whether the decision brings up issues of real legal significance and importance, there may be the possibility of the case appearing before the final stage: the Grand Chamber (17 judges).
Finally, once a decision has been made about the case by the Court, the Committee of Ministers (the ‘executive branch’ of the Council of Europe) will ensure that the judgments of the Court are enforced and implemented.

Making an Application

The Application Form
The application form can be found here. The form can be filled in without a lawyer or legal advice but it must clearly outline the facts, the alleged violation of a human right(s), a statement that the Courts in the home country have been used before applying and a description of these stages, and that all relevant documents are attached. More detailed information from the Court on how to fill in the form, including how to write it and where to send it to, can be found here.
Victim Status
An application can be made by “any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals” who claim to be the victim of a human rights violation by one of the member states to the Convention. Victim could mean the person or people who are directly complaining of a human right violation. For instance, Joe Bloggs is beaten up by police officers employed by the State – Joe is a direct victim. A victim can also be an indirect, such as a close relative to someone who has a human right violated, or someone else with a close relationship. So, if Joe Bloggs was killed by the police, the mother, wife or somebody else in the family could claim to be an indirect victim of the violation of Joe’s right to life.
Any application must be made against the appropriate member state (for most readers of this guide, that state will be the United Kingdom). You cannot bring a case against your next-door neighbour, for example. For an application to be considered, the member state must have allegedly failed in their duty to protect a human right. The introductory guide in this series outlines in greater depth how a state may be responsible.

Admissibility Criteria

The court provides an interactive checklist showing what is needed in an application. You should check this, as well as the Court’s guide (available [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]), before sending your application. There is also a 90-page document which explains why an application may be unacceptable and proceed no further through the Court system (available [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).
In summary, the criteria includes:

• Exhaustion of domestic remedies: this means that all relevant courts and internal complaint procedures in the UK must have been used before applying (unless there are exceptional circumstances or “no real prospect of success”).
  
• Following this, an application must be made within six months of the final decision. The date of the postmark recorded on the application will be the time used by the court.
  
• Applications must not be anonymous: the applicant must provide sufficient details to eliminate doubt as to who they are and it must be signed by the applicant’s representative if he or she has one.
  
• It cannot be a redundant application: in other words, if the complaints and facts are identical to an application already made then it will not be accepted.
  
• It will not be accepted if it is “manifestly ill founded”. This includes misleading the court, if offensive language is used, if it is vexatious/devoid of real purpose, etc.
  
• Incompatible ratione personae: the alleged violation needs to have been committed by the state or be in some way related to it.
  
• Incompatible ratione loci: the alleged violation must have taken place within the territory or jurisdiction of the state (which is the ‘respondent’ in the application form).
  
• Incompatible ratione temporis: it will not be accepted if the case applies to facts or acts which occurred before the ECHR came into force.
  
• Incompatible ratione materiae: the right relied on by the applicant must be protected by the court (in other words, it must be a right protected under the ECHR).
  
• If “no significant disadvantage” arises then it will not be accepted. This is based on the idea that an alleged violation must reach a minimum level of severity for it to be considered by this international court.
  

It is also important to be familiar with the ‘rules of court’ which govern everything from how to communicate to the Court, how to change or amend pleadings, the relevant time limits, and how to conduct yourself in written and oral proceedings. These are available [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Interim Measures

There may be times when someone needs the Court to act far more urgently than it normally would. If so, interim measures may be applied, but only where there are exceptional circumstances and where there is a real risk of serious and irreversible harm. Generally, the Court will act more urgently when the case concerns the removal of a person from one member state to another country (this normally falls under either Article 8 (right to private and family life) or Article 3 (prohibition on ill-treatment)). In these circumstances, it is usually the last method available and a chance for people to appeal against a decision to remove them. This highlights just how serious the case needs to be for interim measures to be granted.
Rule 39 of the rules of court provides the avenue for making an application for interim measures. The applicant needs to apply to the court for interim measures (usually a separate letter attached to the application or sent separately). The court decides whether to grant it and then sends the decision to both parties. The decision cannot be appealed and it only provides interim relief for this particular issue; it does not mean there has been a violation of a human right or that the ban on removing a person is permanent. But it is a valuable tool for many people throughout Europe who find themselves in this situation.

Available Remedies for a Successful Application

So why go through all these stages and hurdles? There are many reasons: some may do it out of principle; some may want to see the law changed; some may desire an investigation; and some may want financial compensation.
The Court’s decision cannot directly change the UK’s law, but in most cases the UK will alter its law as a result of a decision made by the European Court of Human Rights. This may provide personal justice, as well as justice for others in a similar position.
Many cases brought before the court from other countries (and also from the UK) are situations where family or loved ones try to find the truth about why someone they cared about was killed under the protection or supervision of state authorities.
The court also has the power to award what is known as ‘just satisfaction’ (under Article 41 of the ECHR). Normally, this is a monetary sum paid by the state to the victim(s) within a certain time period. This can include the cost of legal representation, damages and interest. Importantly, the court demands that expenses are itemised and presented to it. A more detailed factsheet on just satisfaction can be found [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There are clearly a vast number of steps and issues which need to be complied with to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. This court is used by 47 different countries and the application process is the same for each. It is a process which is designed to be accessible through the language barriers, as well as the legal, political and cultural differences.
This guide is not a DIY guide for applying, but it does provide an introduction for how you can bring a case to the court without a lawyer; something which many applicants do. This is a Court which provides a final chance for people to uphold their human rights and the system is designed to try to not disadvantage those who do not have the mammoth resources of the defending government.

Key Points

• The application process to the court is relatively simple and streamlined; mainly because citizens in all 47 Council of Europe Member States apply through the same form
  
• A case will only be successful if:
  
  
  
  • There has been a violation of a human right
    
  • The application form has been filled in correctly
    
  • The applicant is a ‘victim’
    
  • The applicant has exhausted all domestic remedies available
    
  
  
  
• The court can award financial damages, as well as often leading to a semi-direct change in the law of their own country
  

Nothing in this guide is intended to constitute legal advice and you are strongly advised to seek independent advice on matters that affect you.



Will the McCanns take their appeal to the ECHR?

Doug D wrote:I think that’s one word we’ll all remember from now on!
 
‘Indeferida’.
 
Come on Tracey, get typing.

Yeah come on Tracey get typing.   What marvellous news.

Wow let's hope this is definitely an end to it all.   Rocky and family deserve to have peace  now.

Wonderful news indeed.

Mirage wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Indeferida fits quite nicely to the tune of Guantanamera. I've  been singing it whilst stirring my risotto and toasting Goncalo with a glass of bubbly.

To Rocky. Your good health Sir.

Love it.  ha ha ha.