DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

(Translation)

I have no difficulty in finding, in common with my fellow judges, that the Stuttgart Regional Court did not violate any of the applicant ’ s fundamental rights in deciding that a third defence counsel should be appointed for him.

With reference to the choice of defence counsel, however, I consider that Mr Croissant was entitled to refuse the assistance of a lawyer in whom he had no confidence, just as the court was entitled to refuse, for valid reasons, to appoint the lawyer suggested by the applicant.

It appears that no efforts were made to secure the appointment as third defence counsel of a lawyer in whom Mr Croissant had confidence and in respect of whom there were no valid grounds to prevent the court appointing him. Moreover, it has not been shown that it was not possible to find a lawyer who complied with both these requirements.

In such circumstances it is not permissible that Mr Croissant should be obliged to reimburse the State for Mr Hauser ’ s fees.

[*]  The case is numbered 62/1991/314/385.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creations and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]   As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]  Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 237-B of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.