The saga of the McCanns' appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

froggy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

froggy wrote:

Poe wrote:I can't help thinking that this is a going down with all guns blazing situation where they would rather bankrupt themselves going through the ECHR than hand over a single euro to Mr Amaral.

The two are separate issues and the need to pay the Portuguese legal fees and expenses will arise long before anything is considered by the ECHR

It would be an ongoing case though, the same case, so surely the fees would be on hold as the loser has to pay both sides, which if paid out now would need to be clawed back.........    

It isn't an on-going case, as the defendants are different.
Amaral et al are entitled to whatever the court awarded them in the way of costs and expenses and that would still be so if the McCanns were to win at the ECHR.

How do you work that out then - surely if and I say if in bold, as it is highly unlikely, if they overrule the judges of Portugal then in that case their verdict is wrong, or is it? I am lost with this, would it mean starting again? The McCanns talk that he must not be allowed to get away with the lies, so if the ECHR say they are lies, where does that leave things? What are the ECHR deciding on exactly.....Can someone explain this clearly

That exactly explains the confusion I have at the moment over this issue!

You could read this http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf

In as far as I know, the ECHR doesn't rule in this kind of things.
IMO they [McCs] are trying to buy time ...
Hopefully [I've seen elsewhere some learned comments about it] it won't be admitted.
I frankly cannot imagine, why it would take 4 years to be thrown out and also NOT why it would "lame" the last Portuguese ruling!

Châtelaine wrote:In as far as I know, the ECHR doesn't rule in this kind of things.
IMO they [McCs] are trying to buy time ...
Hopefully [I've seen elsewhere some learned comments about it] it won't be admitted.
I frankly cannot imagine, why it would take 4 years to be thrown out and also NOT why it would "lame" the last Portuguese ruling!

No, if they don't judge on these kinds of things then it couldn't possibly take 4 years to decide whether to throw it out or not...... plus the lawyers would know darn well that was the case and would in no way advise their clients to even consider it.

Something not adding up about all this

That's what I understand - this is not within the ECHR's jurisdiction. Surely applications are checked soon after they're received and the senders of any that are unacceptable are notified there and then?

Thanks for the link, Froggy.

I noticed this:

if I apply to the court, does it mean I do not have to comply with the final Judgment given by the domestic courts?

No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.

In short: it's all bogus ... They really must be panicking by now. IMO, of course.

The ECHR gets a lot of applications so there is a long waiting list. Some will be more pressing than others - deportation type applications.
So if the McCann application, which is not a life or death matter, goes to the bottom of the pile, it may take years to reach the top.

Froggy, don't you think they save time by throwing out non-exceptable demands  ?

And, this for me, in the most important rule: applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.

That's how it should be but would not new cases be looked at promptly to ensure that, when they resurface from the bottom of the pile, they can actually be dealt with?

Châtelaine wrote:Thanks for the link, Froggy.

I noticed this:

if I apply to the court, does it mean I do not have to comply with the final Judgment given by the domestic courts?

No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.

Oh say they do have to pay up then - so this is not about prolonging things.

Just how much does it cost to apply to the ECHR for this judgement, expensive I have read, anyone any ideas what this would cost?

Châtelaine wrote:Froggy, don't you think they save time by throwing out non-exceptable demands  ?

Don't know, but every application will need to be carefully considered by competent people for acceptability as there seems to be no appeal against that decision.

Surely, when deciding which cases are urgent (so they must obviously look at all) -  if they can see from the outset that the case cannot be applied to ECHR then they should notify people immediately?

froggy wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Froggy, don't you think they save time by throwing out non-exceptable demands  ?

Don't know, but every application will need to be carefully considered by competent people  for acceptability as there seems to be no appeal against that decision.

***
I'd think that the Supreme Court's decision in Portugal is as clear as glass ...

It's good news that the McCanns are not entitled to ignore the decision of the Portuguese supreme court while waiting for the outcome of the ECHR ruling but somehow I can't see them abiding by it.

As we know, they get away with things that lesser mortals don't.

Apart from the Portuguese heel-licking Chow-Chow [sorry, I apologise] they don't have many important friends or backers [nor public] anymore. It will be more and more, IMO, difficult for them to get away with "things".

Last year 82% of all applications were declared inadmissible so the ECHR are a very tough crowd. 10% of this 82% were rejected for this reason:

10% were rejected because the applicants wanted the Court to quash, rehear or revise decisions taken by domestic courts ("fourth instance")

I'm sure the lawyers will reword it completely but surely this is exactly what the M's are wanting? The application will fail, surely?

Oh, well, and then they're "poor me" again.
It's a lost battle, again, and IMO they know it.

Châtelaine wrote:Oh, well,  and then they're "poor me" again.
It's a lost battle, again, and IMO they know it.

Looks like it. It seems that ~3800 applicants tried the same thing last year just because they were "butt hurt" over a domestic decision.

I wonder how much the application fee is?

Another thing that:

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

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Oh, well,  and then they're "poor me" again.
It's a lost battle, again, and IMO they know it.

Looks like it. It seems that ~3800 applicants tried the same thing last year just because they were "butt hurt" over a domestic decision.

I wonder how much the application fee is?

Nothing?

Your case will be dealt with free of charge

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

Oh, right. Cheers for that. I'm sure I read somewhere this endeavour would be very expensive?

What about this quote from a 'pal' that said it was too expensive to launch, in the quote I posted yesterday from the End of the Road article.

candyfloss wrote:So from the 'End of the  Road' article 2 months ago a pal said this......


The family pal said: “Realistically a European Court appeal was never going to succeed plus it would be too expensive to launch[/color]. It seems Mr Amaral, regrettably, has won once and for all. The fight is finally over.




So exactly how much is this going to cost to launch this appeal, very expensive by the sounds of it/