The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.

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

Proceedings concerning pre-trial detention 4 .

    The applicant maintained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive and unreasonable.

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

administratifs, par courrier enregistré à son secrétariat le 06 janvier 2016, à la suite du refus opposé par le président du conseil départemental de l'Isère à sa demande de communication du bordereau des prix

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

    The applicant claimed 153,000 US dollars in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the loss of earnings during his pre- and post-trial detention.

The applicants were held in pre ‑ trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and five days. 4 .

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

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

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ pre-trial detention.

    The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention.

a preliminary hearing and decided to extend his pre ‑ trial detention without fixing a time-limit for it. 13 .

    The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In application no.

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

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

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention. 3.

    The applicant complained of the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.