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

    Statuant sur l'appel interjeté par les deux administrateurs condamnés ainsi que de l'organisme public pour l'électricité ( ENEL ) et de la municipalité de Manfredonia, qui s'étaient constitués

ENEL, 6/64, Rec. 1964, p. 585, et Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato c.   Simmenthal SpA, 106/77, Rec. 1978, p. 629).

xa0; Le requérant fut renvoyé en jugement devant le tribunal de Milan dans six procédures différentes, à savoir les affaires Eni-Sai , Banco Ambrosiano , Enimont , Metropolitana Milanese , Cariplo et Enel

Act of 4 July 1996 amending the transitional regime and introducing certain technical adaptations ( Wet van 4 juli 1996 tot wijziging van de Algemene nabestaandenwet (wijziging overgangsrecht alsmede enkele

xa0;  waaruit kan worden afgeleid dat de raadsman aan het Hof heeft       kenbaar gemaakt dat hij als zodanig wilde optreden - noch zijn       enkele

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