At the pre-trial stage the applicant was committed to the hospital for charged and convicted persons in Trenčín on two occasions, namely between January and February 2012 and March and June

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

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.

    On the same date, the first-instance court confirmed the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding that the circumstances under which it had ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention had

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.

However, with the passage of time those initial grounds for pre-trial detention became less and less relevant and the domestic courts failed to rely on other “relevant” and “sufficient” grounds to justify

    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.

No further decision concerning the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention is available in the case file. 6 .

On 3 July 2018 he was extradited to Serbia and placed in pre-trial detention.

relatif à une question posée par le Syndicat de l'outillage à main et des machines électroportatives (S.O.M.M.E.P.) sur la détermination des prix dans les contrats cadres de distribution, d'achat ou de

    The applicant 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 .

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

    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.

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

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

UKRAINE (Application no. 23312/15)     JUDGMENT   Art 5 § 3 • Reasonableness of pre-trial detention • Domestic courts’ failure to provide relevant and sufficient justification for decisions