criteria are to be applied: the legal classification of the offence in domestic law, the nature of the offence and the nature and degree of severity of the possible penalty (see, among other authorities, Engel

Par des mémoires, enregistrés les 21 décembre 2022, 31 mars 2023, 31 octobre 2023 et 26 décembre 2023, la SAS Parc Eolien des Groies, représentée par Me Enckell, conclut à titre principal au rejet de la

of ill-treatment when they occur in the armed forces, provided they contribute to the specific mission of the armed forces in which they form part, for example training for battle-field conditions: Engel

Belgique du 18 novembre 1970, série A n° 12, p. 40, par. 76 ; Engel et autres c. Pays-Bas du 8 juin 1976, série A n° 22, p. 32, par. 77 ; Iribarne Perez c.

The Court had found in that case (§§ 61-63) and in Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (8 June 1976, § 72, Series A no. 22) and Shelley v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008) that

             Het voorenstaande laat onverlet dat in geen enkel       geval aanleiding kan bestaan voor een terughoudend beleid

Court HR, Engel v. the Netherlands judgment of 18 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-36, paras. 80-85, Eur. Court HR, Eckle and Others v.

Switzerland , 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140, and   Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, § 91, Series A no. 22), the Court is in no position to assess when the applicant should

, Series A no. 311) and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see Engel

noted that he was charged with, inter alia , one charge under the Theft Act 1968 and two charges under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and that he was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment ( Engel

The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not of nature or substance (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, § 59, Series A no. 22

Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV), and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June

must be his concrete situation, and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see the following judgments: Engel

    On 10 November 2015 at around 3.00 p.m. police officers arrested the applicant in Engels, the Saratov Region, on suspicion of mugging.

  They referred to the criteria developed by the Court in its case-law, particularly the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976 (Series A no. 22) and the Öztürk v.

alternative criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, namely the classification of the offence in domestic law, the nature of the offence and the nature and severity of the penalty (see, in particular, Engel

His close arrest amounted to detention involving as it did confinement to a cell under supervision ( Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, § 63). B.

mutandis, the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 15, para. 28) and exemplified in paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 (art. 6-3-d) ("under the same conditions" - see, mutatis mutandis, the Engel

  41087/98, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII and Engel and Others v.   the Netherlands judgment of 8   June 1976, Series A no.   22). 53.