003-6020290-7722887

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 082 (2018)   01.03.2018   Judgments and decisions of 1 March 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1 and 53 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one   other Chamber judgment in the case of Selami and Others v. ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of   Macedonia’ (application no. 78241/13);   separate press releases have also been issued for two decisions, in the cases of Bonnaud and Lecoq   v. France (no. 6190/11) and Calancea and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 23225/05);   two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 51 remaining decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   T.C.E. v. Germany (application no. 58681/12)   The applicant, T.C.E., is a Nigerian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Germany.   The case concerned the authorities’ refusal to grant T.C.E. a residence permit despite his argument   that he had a daughter in Germany, with whom he had enjoyed family life within the meaning of the   European Convention on Human Rights.   T.C.E. arrived in Germany, for a second time, in October 2000. His daughter, a German national, was   born the same month. In May 2002 he was sentenced to eight years in jail for drug trafficking and in   March 2003 a court refused to extend his residence permit and ordered his expulsion to Nigeria on   his release. However, after his release in July 2009 he was granted exceptional leave to remain   (“Duldung”) and in September of that year he applied for a residence permit based on family ties.   After two rounds of administrative and lower court proceedings, the Bavarian Administrative Court   of Appeal denied his right to a residence permit. It based its decision in particular on the fact that   there was a final expulsion decision against him and that he did not have a valid passport, which was   a condition to be granted such a permit. In September 2012 the Nigerian Embassy in Germany   refused to issue a passport to T.C.E. while proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights   were still in progress. He has remained in Germany.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, T.C.E. complained about the domestic authorities’ refusal to issue him a residence   permit.   No violation of Article 8   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a   panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and   deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Chatzistavrou v. Greece (no. 49582/14)*   The applicant, Maria Chatzistavrou, is a Greek national who was born in 1970 and lives in Chalkida.   She was allegedly assaulted on 3 December 2008 as she left the Criminal Court, by a police officer   who was on duty and responsible for maintaining order in the court. She lodged a complaint against   him, against a passer-by who had witnessed the incident and against the proprietor of the   newspaper kiosk outside the court, and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European   Convention, she alleged that the police officer had subjected her to inhuman and degrading   treatment, causing her serious injury. She also contended that the court had examined the case in a   superficial manner, had committed serious errors and had disregarded decisive evidence.   No violation of Article 3   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   2