previous decisions by the Court to the effect that the finding of a violation may of itself constitute "just satisfaction" (Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 22-23, par. 46; Engel

Furthermore, the guarantees contained in Article   10 of the Convention extend to military personnel and civil servants (see the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series

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.

rely on his cellmates for assistance with using the toilet, bathing and getting dressed or undressed, contributed to its finding that the conditions of detention amounted to degrading treatment (see Engel

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

Austria , judgment of 23 April 1987, no. 9273/81, and Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , judgment of 8 June 1976). (...) 5.4.

Court HR, Engel and others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 42, para. 103).   73.

On the basis of Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, § 90, Series A no. 22, and Phillips , cited above § 35, the mere fact that the prosecution had accused the applicant of specific offences

24, § 10), intervals as long as these are far in excess of the limits laid down by Article 5 § 3 (art. 5-3), even taking due account of the exigencies of military life and military justice (see the Engel

is an exhaustive one 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

COURT’S CASE-LAW REFERRED TO 8.6.1976, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands; 18.7.1994, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany; 9.12.1994, Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands; 22.2.1996, Putz v.

the Strasbourg Court, in relation to the identifying criteria of the penalty and the matière pénale – as determined in a well-established line of interpretation, developed in the wake of the judgments Engel

rules are decisive factors vitiating a tribunal’s independence and impartiality (see the following judgments: Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 40, §   80; Engel

Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicants (seven votes to two). court’s case-law referred to 8.6.1976, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands; 26.4.1979, Sunday Times v. the United

before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with them (see, inter alia, the following judgments: Engel

qualifies as “criminal”, three criteria are to be applied: the legal classification of the offence in domestic law, the nature of the offence and the degree of severity of the possible penalty (see Engel

attendance and examination of every witness on the accused’s behalf: its essential aim, as is indicated by the words ‘under the same conditions’, is a full ‘equality of arms’ in the matter" (see the Engel

Court H.R., Engel and others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-34, para. 80).   44.   The case of M. v.

the court-martial proceedings, since they involved the determination of Mr Findlay’s sentence following his plea of guilty to criminal charges; indeed, this point was not disputed before it (see the Engel