5.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1997 respectively and live in St Petersburg. They are a single mother and her son.
6.  In 1995 the first applicant and her mother left Uzbekistan for Russia and settled in St Petersburg. They were granted the status of “forced migrants” for an initial period of five years. In 1997 the second applicant was born.
7.  In 1998 the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”) provided the applicants and the first applicant’s mother with a room in a three-room flat. A social tenancy agreement was concluded with the first applicant’s mother.
8.  In October 2000 the FMS extended the forced migrant status of the first applicant and her mother until 2 June 2001.
9.  In July 2001 the second applicant was registered as living in the room.
10.  On 8 November 2001 the FMS deprived the first applicant of her status as a forced migrant on the grounds that she had not applied in due time for it to be extended. According to the first applicant, she was not informed of that decision until 2003.
11.  In 2002 the first applicant was excluded from the social tenancy agreement owing to the fact that she had lost her forced migrant status.
12.  On 17 February and 16 April 2003 the first applicant applied to the FMS with a request to re-establish her status as a forced migrant.
13.  On 20 February and 8 May 2003 respectively the FMS upheld its decision of 8 November 2001 and dismissed the first applicant’s request.
14.  In February 2009 the first applicant’s mother died.
15.  In July 2009 the FMS ordered the applicants to vacate the room. The applicants did not vacate the room and continued to live in it.
16.  In December 2009 the applicants were placed on the waiting list for social housing.
17.  On 19 January 2010 the applicant applied to the FMS with a new request to re-establish her forced migrant status.
18.  On 25 January 2010 the FMS upheld its decision of 8 November 2001. The first applicant decided to challenge that decision in court.
19.  On 3 November 2010 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg held that the decision of 25 January 2010 had been unlawful and had to be set aside. In particular, the court held that the first applicant had had valid reasons for missing the deadline for applying for an extension of her forced migrant status. The court ordered the FMS to extend the first applicant’s migrant status.
20.  On 25 January 2011 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the decision of 3 November 2010 and dismissed the first applicant’s complaint against the decision of the FMS of 25 January 2010. The court held, in particular, that between 2003 and 2010 the first applicant had not tried to contest the refusals of the FMS of 8 November 2001, 20 February and 8 May 2003 to re-establish her forced migrant status, which showed that she had lost interest in having that status. In her complaint the first applicant had contested the decision of 25 January 2010 and therefore, it was irrelevant whether she had had valid reasons for missing the deadline for applying for an extension of her status. The court held, that the decision of 25 January 2010 had been based on Section 5 (4), of the Federal Law on Forced Migrants, which provided that the extension of the status of forced migrants could be granted only at their request (see Relevant domestic law below). Therefore, there were no grounds for declaring that decision unlawful.
21.  In 2011 the FMS brought court proceedings against the applicants, seeking their eviction from the room.
22.  The local authorities objected to the eviction, because the room was the only dwelling available to the second applicant.
23.  The applicants submitted that their eviction would be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, since it was not necessary in a democratic society. The room in question was their only dwelling. They had been on the waiting list for social housing since 2009. The first applicant was a single mother whose income was insufficient for buying a flat.
24.  On 15 May 2012 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered the applicants’ eviction from their room, without providing any alternative accommodation. In particular, the District Court held as follows:
“... Panyushkina M.S. [the first applicant] lost her forced migrant status in 2001, her minor son has never had such a status, and therefore the court comes to the conclusion that the respondents unlawfully occupy the disputed housing and should be evicted without the provision of any alternative accommodation ...”
25.  The applicants lodged an appeal against the eviction order, submitting that their eviction was disproportionate since the court had not taken their arguments into account.
26.  On 4 October 2012 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the eviction order. In particular, the City Court held as follows:
 “... It is impossible to take into account the arguments submitted by Panyushkina M.S. [the first applicant] in her grounds of appeal, whereby the eviction from the disputed housing without the provision of any alternative accommodation is a violation of their [the applicants’] housing rights, since they do not have any other housing. The housing stock aimed at providing forced migrants with temporary housing is for a strictly designated use – the provision with housing of individuals who have been legally acknowledged to be forced migrants and their family members; the loss or deprivation of the status of forced migrant implies the loss of the right to live in the housing, termination of the social tenancy agreement and the obligation to vacate the occupied accommodation ...”
27.  The applicants did not lodge a cassation appeal against the above decisions.
28.  On 22 November 2012 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings with regard to the eviction order. The applicants were given five days to comply voluntarily with the judgment of 15 May 2012.
29.  On 13 May 2013 the first applicant asked the administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg to provide her with alternative accommodation.
30.  On 12 August 2013 the administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg concluded an agreement with the first applicant for use of social accommodation free of charge for a period of one year. The Government submitted that it had been open to the applicants to apply for an extension of that agreement. However, they had not asked for the agreement to be extended after the expiry of the initial period. The applicants submitted that it had not been possible to ask for any extension of the agreement.
31.  On 12 September 2013 the applicants vacated the disputed room in compliance with the eviction order of 15 May 2012.
32.  On 11 March 2015 the enforcement proceedings were terminated on the grounds that the applicants had voluntarily vacated the room.
33.  Since 15 March 2016 the second applicant has been registered as living in the flat belonging to his father and his paternal grandmother.
34.  The first applicant was currently renting for her and her son a room in a shared apartment at her own expense. Her landlord had not registered her as living at the address of the rented room. She submitted that she had asked her former husband to register the second applicant as living in his flat by necessity, because the absence of registration had subjected him to everyday difficulties. However, de facto the second applicant had continued to live with the first applicant.
35.  According to the information provided by the Government, in 2016 the administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg prepared a draft order for the removal of the second applicant from the waiting list of persons eligible for social housing.