law, the nature of the charge and the penalty to which the person becomes liable ( Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, §   82, ECHR 2003 ‑ X, citing Engel

Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8   June 1976, Series A no. 22, § 82).

    The Court notes that it is not disputed by the parties that the applicability of Article 6 falls to be assessed on the basis of the three criteria outlined in the Engel judgment ( Engel and

    In comparable cases involving the imposition of tax surcharges, the Court has held, on the basis of the “Engel criteria” (see Engel and others v.

    The Court’s established case-law sets out three criteria, commonly known as the “Engel criteria”, to be considered in determining whether or not there was a “criminal charge” for Convention

  10795/14, §§   33 47, 23 June 2020, Engels v.   Russia, no.

D.H., arrêt Engel et autres c. Pays-Bas du 6 juin 1976, série A n° 22, p. 38-39, par. 91).

offence in the instant case did not qualify as a criminal offence within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, since it did not meet the criteria as established by the Court in the case of Engel

functions, the Court must also take account of the object and purpose of the Convention and of the national legal systems of the other Contracting States (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Engel

principe, de comparer les diverses décisions rendues, même dans des litiges de prime abord voisins, par des tribunaux nationaux dont l’indépendance s’impose à elle comme aux États contractants (voir Engel

It leaves it to the appropriate national authorities to decide on the relevance of the proposed evidence in so far as is compatible with the concept of a fair trial (see, among other authorities, Engel

He was represented before the Court by Mr Engels, a lawyer practising in Hamburg. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.

    Pour déterminer l’applicabilité de l’article 6 de la Convention en matière pénale, la Cour applique les critères contenus dans l’affaire Engel   et   autres c.

Commission’s report - whether and to what extent Article 6 para. 3 (art. 6-3), or a particular sub-paragraph thereof, is applicable at the stage of the preliminary investigations (see, mutatis mutandis, the Engel

Court H.R. case of Engel and others, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 34-35, para. 82) the Commission cannot exclude that the proceedings complained of were decisive of a "criminal charge"

Avocat plaidant : Me Sophie ENGEL, avocat à Strasbourg. INTIMÉES : 1/ La S.C.I.

devenue Engie Énergie en charge de la maintenance et de l'exploitation de l'équipement, la société Donau Carbon, société de droit italien ayant construit l'incinérateur, et le récupérateur, la société Endel

L'expert propose ensuite de retenir, pour les travaux de reprise du second œuvre, un devis établi par la société Engel, pour un montant de 37 312,75 euros hors taxe.

individuelle dans son acception classique, c’est-à-dire la liberté physique de la personne   ; il a pour but de s’assurer que nul n’en soit dépouillé de manière arbitraire   » (cf. notamment arrêts Engel