penalty – in his case, fifteen days’ imprisonment – rather than the actual penalty imposed which was the decisive element for classification of an offence as “criminal” (he referred to the cases of Engel

In assessing this issue, the Court is not bound by the indications furnished by domestic law, which have only a relative value (see the following judgments: Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June

  Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 November 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 34-35, para. 82 _______________           The Court has adopted the

     The Court was confronted with a similar issue in the case of Engel and others, which was cited in argument by the representatives.

    The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 protects the physical liberty of the person (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, §   58, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi v.

    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, §   85, Series  

    The Court of Cassation examined in detail the statutory provisions governing demolition orders, also in the light of the Court’s relevant case ‑ law (namely Engel and Others v. the

Öztürk was a "criminal" one, the Court referred to the criteria adopted in its judgment of 8 June 1976 in the case of Engel and Others (Series A no. 22, pp. 34-35, § 82).

However, the list set out in Article 14 is illustrative and not exhaustive, as is shown by the words “any ground such as” (in French “ notamment ”) (see Engel and Others , cited above, § 72; and Carson

Ireland (no. 3) , 1 July 1961, pp. 51-53, §   14, Series A no. 3, and, mutatis mutandis , Ječius , cited above, §§ 50-51, and Engel and Others v.

§ 1 of Protocol No. 7 on the basis outlined above, the question arose whether a disqualification order under section 142 of the Bankruptcy Act must be considered a “criminal matter” under the three Engel

criteria” (that is, the legal classification under domestic law, the nature of the offence and the degree of severity of the penalty – see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8   June 1976, Series

Le requérant fut renvoyé en jugement devant le tribunal de Milan dans six procédures différentes, à savoir les affaires Eni-Sai , Banco Ambrosiano , Enimont , Metropolitana Milanese , Cariplo et Enel .

Öztürk relevait ou non de la "matière pénale", la Cour se référait aux critères retenus dans son arrêt Engel et autres du 8 juin 1976 (série A n o 22, pp. 34-35, § 82).

seconde doit en outre résulter de la première, se produire, "à la suite et par suite" - ou "en vertu" - "de celle-ci" (arrêt X contre Royaume-Uni du 5 novembre 1981, série A n o 46, p. 17, par. 39; arrêt Engel

Ainsi, le Gouvernement le souligne à juste titre en renvoyant à l’arrêt Engel du 8 juin 1976, les poursuites disciplinaires ne relèvent pas, comme telles, de la "matière pénale"; il peut pourtant en aller

  Engel v. Hungary (no. 46857/06) The applicant, Zoltán Peter Engel, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Szeged (Hungary).

It further notes that the minor offence of which the applicant was accused and convicted, according to the Engel criteria (see   Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no

  » L'arrêt continuait en appliquant «   les critères Engel   » ( Engel et autres c.   Pays-Bas , arrêt du 8 juin 1976, série A n o 22).