The applicable general principles concerning the length of and justification for pre-trial detention are set out in Buzadji (cited above, §§   84 ‑ 91). 35 .

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

    The applicant submitted that no reasons could have justified the length of his pre-trial detention.

    The applicant complained that the length of his detention on remand after 23 July 2011 had been excessive.

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

    On 20 June 2003 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government.

    On 29 August 2014 the complaint concerning the length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

    The Court notes at the outset that the total length of the applicant’s detention does not appear manifestly excessive.

    On 16 March 2015 the complaint concerning length of pre-trial detention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. 5.

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

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

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

The length of the detention on remand and its extension ... (8)   Once the case-file has been sent to a court, the detention on remand cannot be imposed for longer than 6 months if the person is accused

    The case concerns the applicant’s allegations of excessive length of his pre-trial detention, which lasted approximately four and half years, in breach of Article 5 § 3. 2.

    The present case concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the restrictions on family visits. 2.

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

    The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 5.

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

    The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 5.

Nevertheless, the court considered that the hearings had been scheduled at regular intervals and the length of the proceedings was justifiable.