The applicants complained of the lack of justification for their pre-trial detention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.

    The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 6.

    The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.

    The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.

    The applicant’s detention (a)     The applicant’s detention during the pre-trial investigation 23 .

    On 5 June 2002 the same court authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

    The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

    Further extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by the Lublin Court of Appeal on 30   May   2012.

    The applicant complained of the unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention. THE LAW Jurisdiction 6.

    The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.

    The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.

    On 2 June 2014 the complaint concerning the length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

pre-trial detention of the suspect.” 19.

    In the present case, the applicant’s pre-trial detention began at the date when he was arrested, namely, on 15 April 2008.

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

    The applicant also complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.

    The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 7.

The applicants were held in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and eight months. 4 .

relative à des pratiques s’opposant à la liberté des prix des services proposés aux établissements de santé à l’occasion d’appels d’offres en matière d’examens anatomo-cyto-pathologiques