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 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.


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 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


Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER)                              (C.A. NØRGAARD)