6.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Alphen aan den Rijn. 7.  On 19 August 2009 the applicant, who was then nineteen years of age, was arrested on suspicion of distribution of child pornography (three pictures of a 16-year-old girl) in April of that year. He was informed that he had the right to consult a lawyer. 8.  At the police station the applicant was taken into police custody (inverzekeringstelling) and, before he had consulted his lawyer (who had not been immediately available) but with his consent, police officers commenced the so-called social interview (sociaal verhoor), during which questions were put to him about his personal circumstances and his personality but not about the offence of which he was suspected. He told the officers, inter alia, that he had a brain disorder: he had cavernous hemangiomas (clusters of abnormal blood vessels) in his brain and spinal cord. This did not affect his functioning other than that it might have a bearing on his trust in others; moreover, while he was allowed to play football he could not head the ball. When the applicant’s lawyer became available the police officers suspended the interview to give the applicant the opportunity to consult his lawyer by telephone. After that conversation, the applicant stated that his lawyer would come to see him at the end of the afternoon and that, on the advice of his lawyer, he would not answer any more questions. The interview was terminated. The applicant met with his lawyer later that day. 9.  The following day, 20 August 2009, the applicant was interviewed twice, including concerning distribution of child pornography, of which he was suspected. At the beginning of the interview, the applicant stated that he would prefer to have his lawyer present. He was told that this was not possible and the interview was started. The applicant replied to the questions put to him. 10.  In the course of the interview the police officers questioning the applicant noted that he made a spasm-like movement with his arm. They asked him whether he was having an epileptic fit. The applicant confirmed that he was. The police officers then decided to interrupt the interview and call a doctor. They heard the applicant say that the seizure could have been caused by a combination of stress and other factors. The interview was resumed. 11.  A final interview was held with the applicant on 21 August 2009. Audio recordings were made of all the interviews. 12.  The applicant was released from police custody on 21 August 2009. 13.  On 25 March 2011 the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague found the applicant guilty of distribution of child pornography and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment and to eighty hours’ community service. The Regional Court was of the opinion that the applicant should have been enabled to consult his lawyer prior to being interviewed by the police for the first time. However, it did not appear from the subsequent interviews that they had been conducted without the applicant having been able to consult his lawyer. Given, moreover, that the contents of the interviews that had been conducted after the applicant had received legal assistance had not substantially differed from the content of the interview that had taken place without legal assistance, the Regional Court considered that the finding that a procedural requirement had not been complied with (vormverzuim) sufficed. The applicant lodged an appeal (hoger beroep). 14.  On 3 July 2013 the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague quashed the decision of the Regional Court, convicted the applicant of the same offence and sentenced him to forty hours’ community service. As regards the claim that the applicant ought to have been assisted by a lawyer during the police interviews, the Court of Appeal held as follows:
“At the hearing on appeal counsel submitted that at the time of the police interviews the suspect had the mental age of a 15 or 16-year old, and also that he was suffering from a brain disorder which may have caused him to have epileptic seizures. Counsel did not submit (medical) data to substantiate that claim.
In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the above does not entail an indication for the officers who interviewed the suspect that he had the mental age of a 15 or 16-year old, nor that the brain disorder from which the suspect is apparently suffering was capable of causing an epileptic seizure. After the suspect had, in the eyes of the interviewing officers, made ‘a kind of spastic’ movement, they had consulted a physician before resuming the interview. The Court of Appeal considers that this was the correct course of action. The Court of Appeal does not agree with counsel that the interviewing officers ought reasonably to have considered the suspect as vulnerable or underage. This means in the light of the Salduz case-law that the suspect, who was an adult at the time, was not entitled to have a lawyer present at his interview.” 15.  The Court of Appeal based its conviction of the applicant on the following evidence:
-  a complaint lodged with the police by the victim, who claimed that in March 2009 (when she had been 16 years old), she had shown the applicant various parts of her body via webcam, that she had subsequently been told by a third party that the applicant had sent photographs of her to that third party, and that she had been told by two other parties that they had received photographs of her;
-  a further statement made by the victim to the police, according to which she had taken a photograph of a part of her body and sent it to the applicant by mobile telephone;
-  a statement made by the applicant to the police on 20 August 2009 to the effect that he had sent several photographs (showing parts of the victim’s body), one of which he had taken by means of a screen shot while the others had been sent to him by the victim, to a third party via mobile telephone and that he had also uploaded them onto an image-hosting website;
-  a statement made by the aforementioned third party to the police, according to which she had received two photographs from the applicant showing parts of the victim’s body; and
-  a record drawn up by a police officer whose investigations into the victim’s allegations had shown that the photographs showing part of the victim’s body were accessible on the world wide web via a profile with a name used by the applicant on the above-mentioned image-hosting website. 16.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), complaining, inter alia, of the refusal to allow him to be assisted by his lawyer during police questioning. On 18 November 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with summary reasoning, in accordance with section 81 of the Judiciary (Organisation) Act (Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie). Under that provision, the Supreme Court may limit its reasoning in a decision to a finding that a complaint does not provide grounds to overturn the judgment appealed against or does not require answers to questions of law in the interests of the uniform application or development of the law.