McCann appeal to European court of Human rights - THE SUN

Posted on CMOMM facebewk by Andy Hopkins (it's probably easier to read it on this link):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Just trying to think outside the box and out loud as it were with this first part so please don’t take it to heart. More anti-facts and malicious propaganda from the nations resident bovine excrement spreader I see but isn’t it always the case that when the nations utterly useless media churn out piece of crap after piece of crap it’s because team McCann are trying to avert attention from somewhere else or attempting to influence decisions or people into their doing their bidding. In the space of 3 weeks we’ve gone from a tip off from one of the McCann’s media plants in Martin Brunt that Operation Grange will ask for extra funding, which spread like wild fire to the useless press who lapped it up without question. Thus far there’s still no official word that this is the case despite weeks of press campaigning, spurring the public on to vent their spleen at this absurd decision, most requesting to have it closed down and funding refused. Could it be that after seeing that this hasn’t worked we’re seeing a ‘plan B’ with the ill fated and to be doomed attempt to take the Portuguese justice system and co to the ECHR?? After all we were all told in July 2017 by the same sycophantic, child abuse supporting mainstream media that the McCann’s had given up, end of the road for them, Amaral had won, plus it would cost far too much as it was made perfectly clear it was a non starter in the Supreme Court judgement! It should be noted that it may well be true as I think it was within 3 weeks last time of end of funding before new funds were released so I would expect to see something official this week possibly if it’s going to happen. Anyway back to real matters, I’ll now repost a comment that has been doing the rounds but coincidentally enough has been missing from the pro-McCann/anti fact & evidence mainstream press articles:
INFORMATION RE APPEAL WITH THANKS FROM ONE OF OUR PORTUGUESE FRIENDS
Re the appeal to European court:
.1-This does not alter the Supreme Court decision
2- The McCann’s still have to pay the Portuguese state for court costs and they have to pay the other parties ' legal fees (I dare say that the bill must probably already be overdue and accumulating interest)
3- Will their appeal against the Portuguese state be accepted or ruled in their favour? The answer is a simple ‘No’. The decision of the Portuguese Supreme Court was all based on
ECHR legislation. No chance at all and very bad legal advice from their lawyers.
4- They have to bring an action against the Portuguese state, not GA and let it be stressed again this will not interfere with the Supreme Court ruling at all. (Note the current time old repeated propaganda tactic of always bringing it back onto Mr Amaral, Amaral vs McCann, Amaral’s fault, Amaral’s lies etc)
The McCann’s owe the Portuguese state for court costs and they owe the other parties for lawyer’s fees. If the articles in the media are correct and no payment has been made and the costs issued by the court, it's time to settle their bill.
One thing seems clear, the McCann team seem desperate to extend the duration of this farce, maybe to the point of overwhelming public opinion to have Operation Grange shut down, maybe to delay paying their fees, maybe for another reason that’s not been thought of yet but it will all be in the best interests of Kate and Gerry whatever it may be. A decision could take up to 4 years the press are keen to re-emphasize and very much reminds me of the McCann’s ‘frivolity customer services’ complaint they made in reaction to the Supreme Court judgement. The McCann’s weren’t bothered that that would drag on for a few months more because of this complaint the McCann fed media claimed (credit to the Textusa blog) and also if (a big IF) I remember correctly wasn’t this also around the same time as the last Operation Grange extra funding request at the end of April (ish)?!
Here’s a short word on some other interesting (to me) anecdotes I have read recently concerning areas of McCann world.
1) Bell Pottinger guilty of coordinating fake news (going into administration) – A decade of UK press lies, smears, libel, misinformation, disinformation, refusal to publish established facts and evidence etc – McCann’s paying the same company £500,000 (yes half a million quid!) “to keep them on the front pages” – Make the connection? Of course you did.
2) Repeated McCann, McCann fed press and McCann trolls insinuation that the distributing of the case files, the discussion of the case files etc means we’re harming the search for Madeleine because people will cease to look for her. Peter Hyatt answers this one quite succinctly “The McCann’s did not address the "kidnappers", and if the parents are not willing to do so, why do you think a social media posting by someone unrelated would change anything?”
3) Persistent use of the word “fight” within McCann media articles. McCann will fight Amaral, fighting fund etc. Again Peter Hyatt states the following “This "fight" is consistent with deception's need for protection. After ten years of maintaining deception, they have increased in desensitization by the successes they've had. They continue to "fight" for public opinion. Listen for the use of the word "fight" in the language.”
4) The recent refusal of the McCann’s to partake in an apparent upcoming Netflix documentary on the case essentially because “Operation Grange is still ongoing”. So remind me again Kate and Gerry why that didn’t stop you doing a fully pre-scripted interview with the publicly funded BBC for the 10th anniversary?? An interview I might add that yet again asked you NO pertinent or difficult questions that we’d like asked of you. And also coincidentally the same entity that did yet another dodgy misleading Panorama documentary in your favour (in my view).
5) With your apparent appeal to the ECHR can you both or either of you tell me and the British public as a whole why it is you’ve appealed to far more court decisions than you have your own missing daughter and her alleged evidence lacking abductor/kidnapper??
That’s all my thoughts and opinions for tonight so thank you and good night.

Excellent post Mr Hopkins, mirroring my own thoughts.....thanks for posting GEG.

Ms Kandohla has suddenly changed her tune . . .


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

Retired Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral has always claimed Maddie died accidentally in her holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz


So why has the Sun for 10 years been claiming that he said they killed her ?   


1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral has claimed[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] after her parents accidentally killed her.


2
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
MADDIE CONSPIRACY COP
Who is Goncalo Amaral? Ex-Madeleine McCann cop who claims Kate and Gerry killed their daughter

He has repeatedly claimed Maddie was killed by her parents ever since.


3
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Kate and Gerry McCann, both 49, have been fighting a lengthy legal battle against Goncarlo Amaral after he wrote a book suggesting they were responsible for the abduction and ‘’death’’ of their daughter in 2007.


and so on and on,

But today - suddenly


Goncalo Amaral has always claimed Maddie died accidentally


Has the Sun woken up to the prospect of being sued by GA, and told Kandohla to tone it down and start telling the truth  ?

The power of the people must be making a few of Dr Amaral's critics shake in their shoes. A few pounds here, and a few pounds there, from those who believe in justice at all costs, will make sure that Amaral will NEVER be in the position he found himself in, when he had both hands tied behind his back, and a certain set was fleecing him for every penny he didn't have.

The wonders of the internet!

As for Kandohla, for a few months now, she's been writing about the McCanns, and I have said, on this forum, "with friends like Ms K, who needs enemies?"

Indeed, sallypelt, especially when she published this rather damning quote:

"A McCann pal told The Sun Online: “Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, like a breakaway fund, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

‘If their application to appeal is allowed the couple are not expected to face a Strasbourg showdown with Mr Amaral until next year.’
 
But Tracey, it’s got nothing to do with GA, it’s about Portugal and the Portuguese Supreme Court.
 
I’m beginning to wonder whether they just submitted a frivolous appeal, (possibly at CM’s behest?) knowing full well there are no grounds to get it accepted, which they pretty much admitted to in early July, just so they can keep this type of MSM bullshit going.

Tracey obviously hasn't read the Supreme Court Judgment, just as she hasn't read the Official PJ files, nor GA's book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie'.

Doug D wrote:‘If their application to appeal is allowed the couple are not expected to face a Strasbourg showdown with Mr Amaral until next year.’
 
But Tracey, it’s got nothing to do with GA, it’s about Portugal and the Portuguese Supreme Court.
 
I’m beginning to wonder whether they just submitted a frivolous appeal, (possibly at CM’s behest?) knowing full well there are no grounds to get it accepted, which they pretty much admitted to in early July, just so they can keep this type of MSM bullshit going.

Exactly, Doug D


Applying to the ECHR
 
Who can an application be about?
 
Your application must be about a State which is bound by the ECHR.
Applications against private entities or  individuals are inadmissible



So there will be no "Strasbourg showdown with Mr Amaral"  this year, next year or ANY year.





I rest my case!

Exactly like I said in an earlier post.... taking on Portugal? 

And how the "EU" does that have an effect? 

Me thinks some big games are being played ....until someone's in "checkmate" ???

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Indeed, sallypelt, especially when she published this rather damning quote:

"A McCann pal told The Sun Online: “Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, like a breakaway fund, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

A pack of cards would be cheaper.

The law is a weird thing. The law isn't about justice. Arguing points of law is the right of those who can afford to do so.

The ECHR appeal is probably arguing the point that a person is innocent until proven guilty and is taking exception to the publication of the Portuguese Supreme Court's final report. It's not about the original defamation lawsuit. It's about the fact the Portuguese Supreme Court said the McCanns are not exonerated from having anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine and the McCanns' right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

It doesn't matter about the initial lawsuit. This is about defamation of the parents' right to innocence. It has nothing to do with Goncalo Amaral's book.

This is all about arguing points of law and being innocent until proven guilty.

Just my opinion.

Completely agree Aquila, and I have a sinking feeling that they might at least get the case heard on this basis. On the other hand though, surely it is a principle of law that one cannot be declared innocent of something that one hasn't been charged and been to court with? I for example cannot be declared innocent of having arranged for Princess Diana to be killed. I have never been arrested or charged in connection with it, and neither have the McCanns for Madeleine' s disappearance. Surely the Portuguese Supreme court ruling is correct, and simply by publicising the fact that they have not been declared innocent, does in no way imply any guilt on their part either. The media mayhem that ensued afterward is nothing to do with the Portuguese court, and in fact I don't remember it being discussed particularly that they had never been declared innocent.

Bumping

Any news on this?

When do the McCanns have to Pay Goncalo amaral?

sharonl wrote:Bumping

Any news on this?

When do the McCanns have to Pay Goncalo amaral?

After they've strung it out for as long as inhumanely possible (ECHR another 4 years), and made him feel miserable and feel fear for as long as inhumanely possible. They know ECHR is a waste of time, but if it makes GA wait then that's all that matters to them.

They are holding his hard-earned pension to ransom.

They are barstewards of the highest order. 

When their time comes to feel fear I hope GA gives it to them with both barrels, and then some.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Indeed, sallypelt, especially when she published this rather damning quote:

"A McCann pal told The Sun Online: “Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, like a breakaway fund, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

''siphoned off''-interesting choice of words. The Cambridge English dictionary gives this definition of 'siphoned off'

siphon sth off

also syphon sth off
— phrasal verb with siphon also syphon uk ​ /ˈsaɪ.fən/ us ​ /ˈsaɪ.fən/ verb [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

​
to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] take [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or other [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and use it for a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for which it was not [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:

He [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] his [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] when it was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that he had been [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] off [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for his own use.

Thesaurus: synonyms and related words
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Appealing to the ECHR doesn't mean the McCanns can delay paying what they owe to the Portuguese Courts because;

The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you read the document carefully..

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

.. you need to question what basis the McCanns are taking their case to the ECHR is being applied - they must be acting against the state, in this case I presume Portugal, so they must be able to prove that Portugal has contravened the convention as laid down by law.

The only aspect I think is open to the McCanns legal representation is ....

'the right to respect for private and family life'  (page 4)

Considering the McCanns history in respect of invasion of their privacy - they invited the media and the public into their private lives so how can they complain?  There is even evidence to suggest they paid half a million smackers to Bell Pottinger to keep them on the front pages !!!  Even if they had the vestiges of a complaint in this direction, it hardly constitutes a valid case against the state of Portugal.  The case won't even get past the doorman.

The ECHR is not there for the likes of the McCanns to whinge about the alleged injustices of the PJ and/or Goncalo Amaral.  The only advantage I can see by any attempted application is to continue the despicable attacks against Mr Amaral's integrity and delay final settlement of the case - a case which has slowly but surely lost any credibility it might have had when first commenced.

Personally, I believe this is just another example of media hype to keep the public on-side.  Realistically, what chances do they have of the ECHR accepting their case, let alone hearing it.

I stand to be corrected but I think it was maybe the first appeal judges said along the lines that they had invited the media into their lives, therefore giving up the right to privacy.  Not correct wording but along those lines.  How would they be able to go to ECHR if that had already been dealt with by portugese appeal court judges?

Lisbon Appeals Court Ruling 19 Oct 2010  [snipped]

Let us now analyse the juridical focus of the rights that were invoked by the applicants:

As mentioned above, the Court's decision a quo immediately put aside the dangers of damage to the applicants' physical integrity or their treatment in a degrading, cruel or inhumane way.

The following dangers subsist:

1. damage to the reservation of the applicants' private and family life;
2. damage to their right to image and a good name;
3. damage to their right to the guarantees of the penal process, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety.
 
Concerning the applicants' reservation of private life, we verify that they themselves have given numerous interviews and intervened in the media, thus giving them [the media] information that would hardly be publicised by any other means: this includes the documentary that was produced by the British TV station "Channel 4", which had the applicants' cooperation and was widely broadcast in the United Kingdom and later on in Portugal (ref. Nos. 32 to 35 of the aforementioned proven facts); one should pay attention to the fact that the applicants have easy access to the national and international media, having given an interview to North American television talk show "Oprah" hosted by the well-known Oprah Winfrey, which was already broadcast in Portugal, also by SIC, on the 4th of May, 2009, and again on the 12th of May (ref. No. 40 of the same facts).

Concerning this matter, the Civil Code establishes as follows:

Article 80º
 

(Right to reservation over the intimacy of private life)

1. Everyone must maintain the reservation over someone else's intimacy of private life.
2. The extent of reservation is defined according to the nature of the case and the persons' condition.

Article 81º
 

(Voluntary limitation of personality rights)
 

1. All voluntary limitation of the exercise of personality rights is null if it is contrary to the principles of public order.
 

2. The voluntary limitation, whenever legal, is always revocable, although with the obligation to indemnify any damages that were caused to legitimate expectations of the other party.

We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
 
 We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.

In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.

In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General's Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.

Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.

We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates - those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved - and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.
 
In a concise manner:

The book at stake in this process - "Maddie - the Truth of the Lie" - which was written by the defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.

The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
 
 As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.

The appeal by defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral is sustained.

The other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced - article 660º, no 2, of the Civil Process Code.

III - Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

 http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm

Looks like all the vestiges of hope for the McCanns, as laid down by the ECHR remit, are covered already by the Lisbon courts.
Again referencing the ECHR link posted up-page, the ECHR are not required to review prior civil court hearings - only to consider the applicants position as regards a violation of human rights.

A non-starter, they haven't got a cat in hell's chance.  One saving grace for them, being in Strasbourg as opposed to Portugal or the UK, there is no way of telling if an application was ever submitted - or ever will be.

Textusa8 Feb 2018, 13:32:00
About the alleged process filed by the McCanns against Portugal at the ECHR we inform that:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Between May 2 2017 and Jan 28 2018, 1,259 cases have been COMMUNICATED to this court and of these 12 have been filed against Portugal:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

- DE OLIVEIRA COSTA c. PORTUGAL (07/06/2017)
- SOARES CAMPOS c. PORTUGAL (13/07/2017)
- PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL et 4 autres affaires (13/09/2017)
- MATHIOT c. PORTUGAL (13/09/2017)
- JIANG ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL (18/10/2017)
- ALBUQUERQUE FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL (31/10/2017)
- DE SOUSA MAGALHÃES ET SOUSA DE CASTRO SOARES c. PORTUGAL et 3 autres affaires (13/11/2017)
- FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL et 1 autre affaire (23/11/2017)
- NÓBREGA v. PORTUGAL (29/11/2017)
- FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL (29/11/2017)
- PATRÍCIO MONTEIRO TELO DE ABREU v. PORTUGAL (01/12/2017)
- WAHED HASSAD c. PORTUGAL (12/01/2018)

Between June 15 2017 and Jan 23 2018, 923 cases have been DECIDED in this court and of these 3 were filed against Portugal:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
- COSTA v. PORTUGAL (26/09/2017) Decision: Inadmissible
- GERÖ ALMEIDA FREITAS c. PORTUGAL (28/11/2017) Decision: Irrecevable
- GENTIL BERGER c. PORTUGAL (16/01/2018) Decision: Radiation du rôle

Between Nov 30 2017 and Feb 08, 571 JUDGEMENTS have been made in this court and 3 of these of 1 case that was filed against Portugal and had 3 decisions:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

- CASE OF LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL - [Romanian Translation] summary by the Supreme of Justice of the Republic of Moldova (19/12/2017) Decision: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded No... 
- AFFAIRE LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL (19/12/2017) Decision: Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestement mal fondé N... 
- CASE OF LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL (19/12/2017) Decision: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded No... 

No mention of the McCanns.

We very much doubt that IF the McCanns filed a case against Portugal in the ECHR, it would have been judged before Nov 30 2017.

Email from Tony Bennett this morning which he gave me permission to reproduce:

I think that, not for the first time, Textusa has misunderstood the situation.

I can claim some knowledge here as I have previously brought a case in the European Court of Human Rights.

You can look it up, it was Hyatt v United Kingdom (1987) and concerned a mother whose child was adopted without her consent.

There are basically FOUR stages in a case reaching the European Court of Human Rights,

First of all, you apply to the EUROPEAN COMMISSION on Human Rights, NOT the Court.

Stage 1 is: is the case ADMISSIBLE? That means, does it meet the basic criteria e.g. does it conform with the time limits, is the matter within the competence of the European Court etc.   

If that is successful, the COMMISSION then passes to

Stage 2, which is: does the case have MERIT. In British legal terms, this is akin to asking: is there at least an arguable case?

If the answer to Stage 2 is YES, ONLY THEN does the matter become referred to the COURT, and is no longer dealt with by the COMMISSION.

So Textusa was rather wasting his time in searching the COURT records, because no doubt the McCanns' application HAS been made, but has not yet passed the 'ADMISSIBILITY' and 'MERIT' stages. In other words, it has not yet reached the European COURT.

In the Hyatt case, I took the case myself successfully past the 'Admissibility' and 'Merit' stages. Once it got past that, I had to put the case in the hands of lawyers (I was not one at the time).

The outcome was that Mrs Hyatt was awarded £12,000 compensation for a serious breach of her rights under Article 6(1).

I would like to emphasise that the European Court has NO POWER WHATSOEVER to overturn a judgment of a national court. The Supreme Court verdict in Portugal in favour of Goncalo Amaral is SAFE.

All the European Court can do is to award compensation if they consider that any individual has suffered a breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The compensation must then be paid by the national government to the person whose rights have been breached.

This by the way means that there is no legal basis whatsoever for the McCanns to deny paying the costs against them that were awarded to Goncalo Amaral. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (if the Commission allows this case to go forward to the Court) has no power to change that order of the Portuguese Supreme Court.

By the way, the Hyatt case was eventually joined by four other natural parents whose cases were considered together by the European Court. The Court ruled that all five had had their human rights breached. As a result, very significant and far-reaching changes were made to the Children Act, in order to prevent such human rights violations happening again. You can read the case on the internet.

Tony Bennett

Thanks, Tony, that's very informative and clarifies the situation about payment of costs awarded to Sr. Amaral. I note from another thread that the fund accounts show money set aside to pay the Mccanns' Portuguese lawyer; do they show any sum for paying the costs? If not, how long do the Mccanns get before proceedings are taken against them to collect??? Perhaps from your legal experience you have some idea how it goes when people fail to pay awards made by a court.

Thank you for the clarity on the ECHR, can't see what the breaches are for the McCanns but do wonder what rights were breached for GA? 

Well done to Tony for the successes and changes resulting from the Hyatt case (may read this later)

If you find it, MayMuse, can you post a link here please? I've just had a quick look on google and couldn't see it and I don't want to interrupt Tony again today as I know he's very busy on our upcoming project.

Yes of course, I cannot find it at the moment ...there are other family law freeing orders etc (which are interesting) but nothing in the name of Hyatt,would it be archived I wonder?

MayMuse wrote:Yes of course, I cannot find it at the moment ...there are other family law freeing orders etc (which are interesting) but nothing in the name of Hyatt,would it be archived I wonder?

I've just dropped him a quick email...

Get'emGonçalo wrote:If you find it, MayMuse, can you post a link here please? I've just had a quick look on google and couldn't see it and I don't want to interrupt Tony again today as I know he's very busy on our upcoming project.

The full European Court of Human Rights decision can be read here:

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

'H', the applicant, was LINDA HYATT.

I brought the case in 1981, and handed it over to the lawyers in 1983 or 1984 when the European Commission on Human Rights decided that the case met the 'Merits' test, and referred the case to the Court.

Six years from application to final judgment is quite typical in the European Court of Human Rights.

So we might be waiting some time for a judgment in the case of Gerald McCann and Kate McCann vs. Portugal (thank you GEG for the correction).

United Kingdom? Don't you mean Portugal?

Well Done Tony, thanks for bringing such clarity.

nice work stalling device if you can get it