Court HR, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-37, paras. 80-88; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v.

fait d'une disposition de droit national dans l'Etat de résidence, la disposition peut être considérée comme discriminatoire ou indirectement discriminatoire (CJUE, arrêt du 6 octobre 2011, Graf et Engel

fait d'une disposition de droit national dans l'État de résidence, la disposition peut être considérée comme discriminatoire ou indirectement discriminatoire (CJUE, arrêt du 6 octobre 2011, Graf et Engel

    Le 29 novembre 1985, la requérante assigna l'ENEL (Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica) devant le tribunal de Foggia afin d'obtenir la réparation des dommages subis en raison d'une

personne ET : DÉFENDEUR : Monsieur [S] [K] né le 30 Avril 1987 à [Localité 10] demeurant [Adresse 4] - [Localité 9] non comparant, ni représenté COMPOSITION DU TRIBUNAL : Président : Sandrine ENGE

: 103 ET : DÉFENDEUR : Monsieur [N] [R] entrepreneur individuel (RCS Caen 538.080.292) demeurant [Adresse 4] non comparant, ni représenté COMPOSITION DU TRIBUNAL : Président : Sandrine ENGE

D.H., arrêt Engel du 8 juin 1976, série A n° 22, p.34, par. 81 ; arrêt Öztürk du 21 février 1984, série A n° 73, pp. 17-18, par. 49-50 ; arrêt Campbell et Fell du 28 juin 1984, série A n° 80, p. 35, par

    The second Engel test, and that on which the appellant’s argument depended, directed attention to the very nature of the offence. ... 18.

    The Court’s established case-law sets out three criteria, commonly known as the “ Engel criteria” (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8   June 1976, Series A no. 22), to be considered

    The Court’s established case-law sets out three criteria, commonly known as the “ Engel criteria” (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8   June 1976, Series A no. 22), to be considered

   The impugned decision was evidently taken with a view to preserving order in the armed forces, a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2) (see the Engel and Others

  Court H.R., Engel and others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A No. 22).

Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, § 32, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII; and Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, §§ 82 and 83, Series A no. 22). 52.

    The Court reiterates that the applicability of Article 6 falls to be assessed on the basis of the three criteria outlined in the Engel judgment (see Engel and Others , cited above, §§ 82

; Art 2 P7 • Right of appeal in criminal matters • Heavy customs fine imposed without proportionality assessment and not open to challenge before “higher tribunal” • Whether penalty “criminal” under Engel

    The Court’s established case-law sets out three criteria, commonly known as the “ Engel criteria” (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8   June 1976, Series A no. 22), to be considered

that the person concerned risked incurring), as spelled out in the Court’s judgment in Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (8 June 1976, §   82, Series A no. 22).

However, the passage from Engel and Others should, I consider, be read with some caution for several reasons.

criteria” ( Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, §   82, Series A no. 22) would lead to the finding that a criminal sanction had in fact been imposed. 46.