transition écologique, de la biodiversité, de la forêt, de la mer et de la pêche, - les observations de Me Clément, représentant la société des Autoroutes du Sud de la France ; - les observations de Me Enckell

accused's personality as part of the sentencing process, unless they are of such a nature and degree as to amount to the bringing of a new charge within the autonomous meaning of the Convention (see the Engel

Court HR, Engel and Others v. Netherlands judgment of 6 June 1976, series A, no. 22, p. 38-39, para. 91).

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.

The appeal against that penalty did not, therefore, have any suspensive effect (contrast Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, § 68, Series A no. 22).

Court H.R., Engel and Others judgment of 1 October 1975, Series A no. 22, p. 37, para. 89).

The applicant appealed to the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region. 30.     On 27 April 2017 the District Court held a hearing, at which a public prosecutor made representations.

    The Court recalls that Article 5 contemplates individual liberty “in its classic sense, that is to say the physical liberty of the person” (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June

though the Court has previously accepted that the rights of military personnel may, in certain circumstances, be restricted to a greater degree than would be permissible in the case of civilians (see Engel

Court HR, Engel v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 38, para. 91; Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89; and Vidal v.

Moreover in the light of the Court’s established case law in this field (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8   June 1976, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 22 and Guzzardi v.

the qualification of the act or omission in the legal system of the State concerned, the nature of the offence, and the nature and degree of severity of the penalty (see, amongst other authorities, Engel

be recalled that the Convention leaves States free to designate as a criminal offence an act or omission not constituting the normal exercise of one of the rights that it protects (see, for example, Engel

;    The sanction imposed on Mr Jamil was ordered by a criminal court, was intended to be deterrent and could have led to a punitive deprivation of liberty (see, mutatis mutandis, the Engel

It was unnecessary for the questionable criteria [6] set out in the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands [7] judgment to be referred to for that conclusion to be reached.

In its analysis it is not bound by the classifications in domestic law, which have only relative value (see the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no.

the domestic classification of the offence; (b) the nature of the offence; and (c) the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risked incurring (see, among many other authorities, Engel

Luluyeva's relatives permitting the transportation of the bodies of Markha Gakayeva, born in 1962, Raisa Gakayeva, born in 1964 and Nura Luluyeva, born in 1960, from Grozny to the villages of Noyber and Engel-Yurt

its part sees no need to examine the witness complaint under Article 6 § 3 (d) of its own motion, as it does not concern the right to hear witnesses “on the same conditions” as the prosecution (see Engel