OPINION OF Mr. H. G. SCHERMERS

     Although in broadly agreement with the majority of the Commission

I have difficulty in accepting that the warrant for the applicant's

committal to prison for 30 days was of a criminal nature.  In paras.

64-67 of the Report it is stated that tax enforcement proceedings with

a punitive element should be considered as falling within the meaning

of a "criminal charge" for the purpose of Article 6.  I am not

convinced that this is what the Commission is faced with here.  In the

Bendenoun judgment the Court accepts the position, which the Commission

had taken before, that a tax surcharge or a tax penalty must be seen

as a criminal charge.  This, however, concerns a kind of fine imposed

as a punishment for tax evasion.  In the present case, however, there

is no question of any such punitive element.  The detention of the

applicant was meant solely as an enforcement measure.  As Article 5

para. 1 (b) expressly permits detention in order to secure the

fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law, I find it difficult to

accept that the detention alone would be sufficiently important to

warrant classifying the "offence" with which the applicant was charged

as a criminal one under the Convention.  In my opinion, the detention

was covered by Article 5 para. 1 (b) and not by Article 5 para. 1 (c).

As there was no criminal offence, the Government's obligation to

provide legal aid under Article 6 para. 3 (c) did not apply.

     By analogy to the Airey Case I would be prepared to accept that

legal assistance could be required under Article 6 para. 1 as an

element of access to Court when complicated questions of law arise in

a case under Article 5 para. 1 (b).  Everyone should be protected

against detention which is insufficiently justified.  In Airey the

court makes clear that Article 6 para. 1 could compel the state to

provide for legal assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves

indispensable for an effective access to court.  In the present case,

however, the need for legal assistance is insufficiently demonstrated.

     Therefore, I do not agree that Article 6 has been infringed.

                                                 (Or. English)

         PARTIALLY CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING