Admission du bureau d'aide juridictionnelle près la Cour de cassation en date du 19 février 2015.

LESQUELS DECLARENT AVOIR OPERE "SERMENT PREALABLEMENT PRETE" SANS QUE SOIENT PRECISEES LA FORMULE ET LA FORME DU SERMENT PRETE ; "ALORS QUE S'AGISSANT D'UNE AUTOPSIE PRATIQUEE A LA REQUETE DU PARQUET

CETAT53-04 PRESSE - FONCTIONNEMENT DES ENTREPRISES DE PRESSE -Dévolution des biens de presse. Déchéance des attributions de biens de presse.

Thus, he spent two years, five months and twenty-five days in pre-trial detention. C.     Merits 19.

Accordingly, the applicant spent in pre-trial detention two years, eleven months, and five days. 20.

His pre-trial detention therefore lasted eleven months and sixteen days. 3.     Conclusion 18.

presentation of further evidence the level of financial guarantees was lowered, the relevant court having realised that, despite the passage of time, the applicant remained unable to pay and the grounds for pre-trial

    Article 5 § 3 of the Convention cannot be seen as authorising pre-trial detention unconditionally provided that it lasts no longer than a certain period.

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

No justification was provided at any point in time as to why it had not been possible to release him during the pre-trial investigation or the trial. 48.

Following the quashing of his conviction on 11 February 2014, the pre-trial detention resumed and continued until his release on 28 July 2014.

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

The pre-trial investigation and the criminal trial had been unreasonably drawn out, due to the subjective approach taken by the investigator. 33.

He was re-arrested on 11 November 2005 and stayed in pre-trial detention until his conviction on 29 April 2010. His pre-trial detention, therefore, consisted of two separate periods. 14.

    The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 6.

The Government also submitted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention comprised two non-consecutive periods.

On 17   August 2012 the court held to place him in pre-trial detention.

    The applicant complained that her pre-trial detention had been unjustified.