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 6 March 1984 by B.N. against Sweden and registered on 27 December 1984 under file N° 11315/84;   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 facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1960.   She is a student and resides at Skottorp, Sweden.   Before the Commission she is represented by her lawyer, Mr. Einar Höier Harksen, Göteborg, Sweden.   In the applicant's parents' bankruptcy proceedings, certain estate inventory lists were submitted to the official receiver.   Due to certain doubts as to the correctness of the inventory lists, he requested the District Court judge dealing with the matter to hear the applicant under oath according to Section 93, para. 2 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1921 as to the inventory of the estate.   Section 93 para. 2 reads:   "Other persons than the debtor are obliged at the request of the official receiver or a creditor to take an estate inventory oath or under oath to confirm certain particulars in the estate inventory if such statements may be presumed to be of importance for the administration of the estate in bankruptcy."   The applicant, however, refused to submit any such statements under oath, referring to the fact that she could not submit further information of any relevance and secondly because of the family relationship between the parties.   The question was thus brought before the District Court of Varberg (Varbergs tingsrätt), which, decided on 31 March 1983 that the applicant should submit a statement under oath since it found that such a statement would appear to be of importance for the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.   The applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden (Hovrätten för Västra Sverige) relying inter alia on the argument that the request was merely based on a wish to harm the family and not necessary for the bankruptcy proceedings.   On 25 May 1983 the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal without stating any further reasons.   The applicant subsequently asked the Supreme Court (Högsta Domstolen) for leave to appeal against this decision referring to her submission before the lower instances and also pointing out inter alia that her mother's health would be in jeopardy should she - the applicant - be forced to submit the statement requested.   The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 30 September 1983.   The case was thereafter resumed in the District Court and facing possible fines or even detention in accordance with Section 94 para. 2 of the Bankruptcy Act, the applicant submitted on 21 December 1983, under oath, the statement requested.   The applicant informed the Court that she did not have any specific knowledge of the now bankrupt estate, that she had had the possibility of examining the inventory lists carefully and that, according to her knowledge, there were no further liabilities or assets in the estate concerned. Finally, she had no remarks or changes to add to the inventory lists.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant alleges that the Swedish courts have violated her right to respect for private and family life by forcing her to submit a statement under oath in relation to her parents' bankruptcy proceedings.   She claims that she thereby has been forced to act against her parents and their interests.   She invokes Art. 8 of the Convention (Art. 8).   THE LAW   The applicant complains that the application of Section 93 para. 2 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1921 in the present case violated her right to respect for her private and family life secured to her under Art. 8, para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 8-1) which reads as follows:   "1.      Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."   The Commission recalls that regulations concerning the right to refuse to testify in criminal cases against a close relative are common in the legal systems of many Contracting States.   Regulations of this kind are designed to avoid putting the witness in the dilemma of making declarations damageable to a member of his family.   Such regulations are inspired by the respect for family life which is required by Art. 8 of the Convention (Art. 8) (cf. Unterpertinger v. Austria, Comm. Report 11.10.84, para. 79).   In the present case the Commission recalls that the applicant was forced to make a statement under oath in proceedings in which her parents had been declared bankrupt and concerning the estate inventory now administered by an official receiver.   In the statement submitted the applicant informed the Court that she did not have any specific knowledge of the estate, that she had carefully examined the inventory lists and that she had no further remarks as to their correctness. The Commission finds that these circumstances do not reveal any interference with the applicant's right to respect for her private and family life as secured to her under Art. 8, para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 8-1).   It follows, therefore, that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27, para. 2 of the Convention (Art. 27-2).   For this reason, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission   (H.C. KRÜGER)                               (C.A. NØRGAARD)