CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 3 mars 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 March 1986 the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL   Mr. H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 25);   Having regard to the application introduced on 1 September 1984 by N.V. against the United Kingdom and registered on 25 March 1985 under file N° 11465/85;   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 applicant is an Irish citizen, currently detained at HM Prison, Wakefield.   He is represented before the Commission by Mr. M. J. Staines, solicitor, of Dublin.   In August 1984 the applicant's lawyer made several attempts to obtain permission from the United Kingdom prison authorities to visit his client at Brixton Prison, where the applicant was then held on remand pending committal for various firearms charges.   The lawyer was told that he would have to apply not more than seven days before the intended visit, but that no problems were expected.   The week before he wished to visit, the lawyer telephoned the Solicitors' Office at the prison, and was told to give not more than five days' notice but that, again, no difficulties were foreseen.   The lawyer duly telephoned two days later and was told that he would not be allowed to visit as the applicant already had an English lawyer under the United Kingdom legal aid scheme, and there was therefore a danger of "touting".   The lawyer protested that he would not, in any event, be entitled to represent the applicant before the United Kingdom courts, and he arranged for a letter to be delivered to the prison from the English lawyer confirming that she did not object to a visit from the Irish lawyer.   On that basis, the prison authorities said that they would re-consider the matter.   The following day (three working days before the proposed visit), the lawyer was told that there was no objection to the professional visit and the lawyer bought an airline ticket and arranged accommodation in London.   The next day the lawyer was told that he would not be allowed to visit his client.   He could make a "social" visit, but that would take two to three weeks to organise, and would therefore fall after the committal proceedings against the applicant, which were due to take place the following week.   The lawyer did not, therefore, visit the applicant and he complained inter alia to the Law Society and to the Home Office.   It is apparent that the applicant was able to communicate by letter with his Irish lawyer, and the applicant did, indeed, change solicitors under the United Kingdom legal aid scheme before the committal proceedings.   On 6 August 1985 the Irish lawyer received an apology from the Home Office and was told that he could visit his client on a professional basis in prison.   The lawyer has, in fact, since visited the applicant in Wakefield Prison on such a "legal" visit, although the applicant had by then been convicted.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant alleges a violation of Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c of the Convention (Art. 6-3-c) in that his Irish lawyer was not able to visit him before committal to discuss the nature and quality of his legal aid representation under the United Kingdom legal aid scheme.   THE LAW   The applicant complains of an alleged violation of Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c of the Convention (Art. 6-3-c) in that his Irish lawyer was not afforded full lawyers' facilities for visiting him in connection with his legal aid representation on charges pending before the United Kingdom criminal courts.   Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c (Art. 6-3-c), so far as relevant, 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 ...   It is a necessary limitation on the right contained in Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c (Art. 6-3-c) that the lawyer chosen to defend the applicant must be capable of appearing before the domestic courts, as otherwise the assistance is of no effect.   The Commission considers that Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c (Art. 6-3-c) does not give defendants a right to be defended before domestic criminal courts by a foreign-qualified lawyer where domestic law does not provide for such representation.   In the United Kingdom at present, a lawyer not qualified in the United Kingdom as a solicitor or barrister as the case may be is not entitled to represent a client before the ordinary criminal courts.   In the absence of any possibility for the applicant's Irish lawyer to represent the applicant before the United Kingdom courts, the Commission considers that the applicant's claim that his rights under Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c (Art. 6-3-c) had been violated must be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27, para. 2 of the Convention (Art. 27-2).   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission       (H. C. KRÜGER)                        (C. A. NØRGAARD)