EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

                            SECOND CHAMBER

                       Application No. 15416/89

                                 G.T.

                                against

                            the Netherlands

                       REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

                     (adopted on 19 January 1994)

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                 Page

I.    THE PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
      (Paras. 1-3)

II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
      (Paras. 4-5)

III.  THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
      (Paras. 6-12)

IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
      (Paras. 13-15)

ANNEX:     DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

I.    The parties

1.    This rapport, which is drawn up by the Commission in accordance
with Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention, concerns the application
brought by G.T. against the Netherlands. The applicant is a Somalian
citizen, born in 1969. At the time of the introduction of the
application, he resided in Leeuwarden, the Netherlands; his present
address is unknown.

2.    In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was
represented by Mr. M.A. Buys, a lawyer practising in Leeuwarden.

3.    The respondent Government were represented by their Agent,
Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

II.   Summary of the Facts

4.    The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision
on the admissibility of 10 February 1993, attached hereto as an
Appendix, and can be summarised as follows:

5.    The case, originally brought by two applicants, namely the
present applicant and his lawyer, concerns the provisional placement
under supervision of a minor Somalian asylum seeker with little
knowledge of the Dutch language, in June 1989.  The Juvenile Judge in
charge of his case cancelled the appointment of the applicant's lawyer
as his legal aid counsel.  The lawyer's deputy, who wanted to take over
the applicant's legal assistance, was subsequently denied access to the
court room by the same Juvenile Judge.  The applicant complained under
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

III.  The Proceedings before the Commission

6.    The application, brought by two applicants, was introduced on
21 June 1989 and registered on 29 August 1989.

7.    On 1 April 1992, the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to
communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite
them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of
the application.

8.    The Government's observations were received by letter dated
10 July 1992 and the applicants' observations in reply were dated
8 December 1992.

9.    On 10 February 1993, the Commission declared the application
inadmissible insofar as brought by the present applicant's lawyer and
admissible insofar as brought by the present applicant himself.

10.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in
accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the
disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.

11.   By letter of 1 April 1993, the Government submitted a proposal
for a friendly settlement of the case.  Following two extensions of the
time-limit for the submission of the applicant's comments on the
Government's proposals, the applicant's representative informed the
Commission by letter of 6 December 1993 that he wishes to withdraw the
application.

12.   On 19 January 1994, the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to
strike the present application out of its list of cases, in pursuance
of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.  The following members
were present when the Report was adopted:

           MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
                 H. DANELIUS
                 G. JÖRUNDSSON
                 J.C. SOYER
                 H.G. SCHERMERS
           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
           MM.   F. MARTINEZ
                 L. LOUCAIDES
                 J.-C. GEUS
                 M. NOWICKI
                 I. CABRAL BARRETO
                 J. MUCHA
                 D. SVÁBY

IV.   The Decision of the Commission

13.   The Commission notes that the applicant does not wish to pursue
the application.

14.   The Commission finds that there are no reasons of a general
character affecting the observance of the Convention which warrant a
further examination of the application.

15.   For these reasons, the Commission, having regard to
Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, unanimously, decides:

-     to strike Application 15416/89 out of its list of cases;

-     to adopt the present Report;

-     to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the parties for
information and to publish it.

Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber

         (K. ROGGE)                           (S. TRECHSEL)