AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 11884/85
                      by D.
                      against the Netherlands


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 7 May 1988, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                  J.A. FROWEIN
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  F. ERMACORA
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  J. CAMPINOS
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 20 June 1985 by
D. against the Netherlands and registered on 6 December 1985 under
file No. 11884/85;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;


        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


THE FACTS

        The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.

        The applicant is a Moroccan national, born in 1952 in
Issoufian, Morocco, and currently residing in Utrecht, the
Netherlands.  He works in a hospital in a non-professional capacity.

        In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by
Mr.  E. Hummels, a lawyer practising in Utrecht.

        On 18 June 1985, the applicant was arrested and put into
detention on suspicion of murder.  His brother was also detained on
suspicion of the same murder.  Mr.  Hummels presented himself as both
brothers' lawyer.

        That same day the lawyer was denied access to the applicant by
Order of the Public Prosecutor, who based himself on Section 50
para. 2 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van
Strafvordering), which provides, inter alia:

        "If specific circumstances lead to a serious suspicion that
        free consultation between counsel and the accused will
        either be used to acquaint the accused with certain
        circumstances which,  in the interest of the investigation,
        he should temporarily not be informed of, or will be
        abused to attempt to impede the discovery of the truth,
        <.....> during the preliminary investigation the public
        prosecutor may repeatedly order that counsel shall not have
        access to the accused or that they shall not be allowed to
        consult alone and that letters or other documents exchanged
        between counsel and the accused shall not be handed over.
        The order shall describe the specific circumstances as in
        the preceding sentences;  it shall only limit the free
        consultation between counsel and the accused to the extent,
        and for the time period, that the circumstances require,
        and is at any rate only valid during six days at most <.....>."

        In accordance with para. 3 of Section 50, this Order was
immediately brought before the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank)
of Utrecht for review.  The Public Prosecutor stated that he had reason
to suspect that the applicant and his brother were attempting to cover
up the truth.  Therefore, to avoid them being able to align their
statements, they should not be allowed to consult with the same
lawyer.  He invoked the first reason stated in Section 50 para. 2.

        The applicant's counsel (Mr.  Hummels) claimed before the
Regional Court a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention,
because the accused was being denied the counsel of his choice.

        The Regional Court, on 19 June 1985, ratified the Public
Prosecutor's Order, confirming the "serious suspicion that free
consultation between counsel and <the applicant> will be used to
acquaint <the applicant> with certain circumstances which, in the
interest of the investigation, he should temporarily not be
informed of".

        As regards the argument under Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the
Convention, the Regional Court held that it did not apply, as the
applicant had not yet been formally charged.

        No appeal is possible against this decision by the Regional
Court.  The applicant was allowed to see a lawyer appointed by the
Court.

        On 25 June 1985 the applicant was released following a request
by his counsel (Mr.  Hummels).  The Regional Court of Utrecht considered
in their release order that the reasons for his detention no longer
existed.

        No subsequent criminal proceedings were brought against the
applicant and he was awarded monetary compensation by the Court of
Appeal (Gerechtshof) of Amsterdam on 1 May 1987 for having been put
in detention without sufficient reason.

COMPLAINT

        The applicant complains of having been denied the right
to consult with the lawyer of his choice during his detention.  He
invokes Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention in this respect.

THE LAW

        The applicant has complained that he was denied the right to
defence counsel of his own choice.  He has alleged a violation of
Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention in this respect.
This Article provides as follows:

        "3.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the
        following minimum rights:

        ...

        (c)  to defend himself in person or through legal
        assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not
        sufficient means to pay for legal assistance to be
        given it free when the interests of justice so
        require;"

        The Commission does not find it necessary to determine the
question whether Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention
applies in cases where a person is detained but not subsequently
charged and brought to trial because, in any event, it finds the
applicant's complaints manifestly ill-founded for the reasons set out
below.

        In the present case the applicant was detained for seven days
and then released.  No subsequent criminal proceedings were instituted
against him.  The applicant was not allowed to see his personal lawyer
because that lawyer was also representing the applicant's brother, who
had been arrested at the same time on the same charge.  The Public
Prosecution wished to eliminate the risk of collusion between the two
brothers.  The Regional Court approved the Public Prosecutor's decision
on 19 June 1985.  Under Dutch law the applicant's counsel may be
denied access to his client during the preliminary investigation for
specific purposes and for a limited period of time.  The applicant was
allowed unlimited access to another lawyer appointed by the Court.

        The restrictions placed on the applicant's contact with his
personal lawyer were limited in time, in accordance with Dutch law,
and all the necessary functions of defence counsel at this stage of
the proceedings which the personal lawyer was unable to perform could
be fulfilled by the lawyer appointed by the Court.

        In these circumstances, the Commission concludes that there is
no indication that Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the
Convention, even if applicable, was violated in the present case.

        It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.


        For these reasons, the Commission


        &_DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.&S



Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission



       (H.C. KRÜGER)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)