4.  The first applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Horná Kráľová. The second applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Nitra. 5.  On 14 March 2014 a judge of the Nitra District Court remanded the applicants in detention pending trial on the charge of continuous criminal offence of insurance fraud. This followed their arrest on 11 March 2014. 6.  With respect to the first applicant, the District Court decided that there were reasons to suspect that he would influence witnesses, reoffend and continue to make illegal financial gains. With respect to the second applicant, the District Court concluded that there was a reason to suspect that he would interfere with witnesses and his co-accused to influence the evidence they would give. 7.  On 21 March 2014 both applicants lodged an interlocutory appeal, arguing that no specific factual elements had been relied on in the District Court’s decision to justify their pre-trial detention. 8.  On 1 April 2014 the Nitra Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ interlocutory appeals, referring to the findings of the District Court. 9.  On 24 April 2014 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint alleging that the decisions on their detention lacked specific reasons justifying their pre-trial detention. They each requested just satisfaction of 5,000 euros (EUR). 10.  The Constitutional Court joined their complaints and on 24 September 2014 found a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. It quashed the relevant part of the decision of the Regional Court and awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000 as just satisfaction in addition to their legal costs and expenses in the amount of EUR 284.
The Constitutional Court noted that where the ordinary courts used only formal and standard phrases in their decisions on detention (as was the case with the applicants), suspicion arose as to whether they had looked properly at the specific circumstances at hand. It concluded that even though the ordinary courts had referred to some specific facts, which allegedly justified the applicants’ detention, they had failed to explain them in their decisions. Furthermore, the Regional Court had not dealt with some of the applicants’ core arguments and thus had not remedied the shortcomings of the District Court’s decision.
In view of the above, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicants’ pre-trial detention had been based on an arbitrary decision lacking proper and sufficient reasoning. 11.  In the meantime, on 30 May 2014 the applicants had been released and placed under supervised probation.