54, §   19, l’arrêt Engel et autres c.   Allemagne du 8   juin 1976, série   A n°   22, p.

Court H.R., Engel and Others judgment, loc. cit.; Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, pp. 18-20, paras. 50-53; Weber judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, pp. 17-18, paras. 30- 35

  18589/07 20/02/2007   18/12/2012 Vasiliy Valentinovich KUZNETSOV 16/09/1971 Engels-2     Saratov Regional Court (reopened proceedings), 28/03/2013.  

xa0;   Olay tarini itibari ile arizasinin;         1- Hayatini tehlikeye maruz kilmadigi,         2-(5) BES gün mutad istigaline engel

égard à trois critères   : la qualification juridique de la mesure litigieuse en droit national, la nature même de celle-ci, et la nature et le degré de sévérité de la «   sanction   » ( Engel

témoin à décharge : ainsi que l’indiquent les mots «   dans les mêmes conditions   », il a pour but essentiel une complète «   égalité des armes   » en la matière   » (arrêts Engel

  Pays-Bas , 24 octobre 1979, § 37, série A n o 33, Engel et autres c.

sens autonome, il n'en demeure pas moins que les majorations incriminées présentent toutes les caractéristiques d'une sanction administrative au sens de la jurisprudence de la Cour dans les affaires Engel

assume a special significance, which justifies leaving to the national authorities a certain margin of appreciation in determining whether the impugned interference is proportionate to the above aim (see Engel

  Greece , no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR   2001–III; and Engel   v.   Hungary , no. 46857/06, § 26, 20 May 2010). 33.

applicant, about five months prior to 2 January 2003, that is, in the summer of 2002, she, her son Salman Bantayev and their neighbour were in a KAMAZ lorry driving from their village to the village of Engel-Yurt

occur in the armed forces, provided that they contribute to the specific mission of the armed forces in that they form part of, for example, training for battlefield conditions (see, mutatis mutandis , Engel

Court H.R., Engel judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 34 f. para. 82; Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, para. 48 p. 17).

Thus, as the Government rightly emphasised with reference to the Engel judgment of 8 June 1976, disciplinary proceedings as such cannot be characterised as "criminal"; nevertheless, this may not hold good

The Government argued for the civil head, while the applicant, relying on the Engel criteria ( Engel and Others v.

These factors resemble the criteria to be considered in determining whether or not there was a “criminal charge”, commonly known as the “Engel criteria” (see Engel and   Others v. the Netherlands

necessary to have regard to three factors: the legal classification of the measure in question in national law, the very nature of the measure, and the nature and degree of severity of the “penalty” (see Engel

In assessing whether or not there was a “criminal charge”, the Court uses three criteria, commonly known as the “Engel criteria”.

    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.