4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Grozny, Chechen Republic.
5.  According to the applicant, on 7 February 1999 the administrative authorities of the Leninskiy District of Grozny provided her with a housing allocation order no. 842 entitling her to occupy a one‑room municipal flat in Grozny.
6.  In 2005 the applicant was registered as living in that flat.
7.  In 2007 the authorities decided to conduct an examination of all allocation orders granting occupation of municipal accommodation. The applicant’s housing allocation order dated 7 February 1999 appeared suspicious to the authorities and they commissioned an expert to verify its authenticity. The expert concluded that the allocation order was a forged document. In particular, the order did not correspond to the date on which it had been issued and the impress of a seal on the order had been made with the help of an improvised cliché which in its turn had been made with a help of a computer on the basis of an impress of the authentic seal.
8.  Upon receipt of this information the administration of Grozny brought court proceedings against the applicant seeking to declare the allocation order of 7 February 1999 null and void and to evict her from the flat in question.
9.  The applicant contested those claims. She submitted that the administration had issued her with the housing allocation order because she had been on the housing list and she was subsequently registered as living in that flat. She had not been aware of the fact that the order had not been printed in the printing office. She also asked to dismiss the claims as time‑barred because according to domestic law the housing allocation order could be declared null and void within three years after its delivery.
10.  The administration of the Leninskiy District of Grozny asked to grant the claims submitted by the administration of Grozny. The administration could not say whether the order had been in fact delivered to the applicant, since the archives had not been preserved. However, according to the civil servants of the administration, commissions on allocation of housing had been meeting once a month. The order no. 842 was issued on 7 February 1999. That would mean that 842 orders were issued from the beginning of 1999 until 7 February 1999. However, the administration of the Leninskiy District could not deliver such a number of housing allocation orders during one month.
11.  On 24 February 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny (“the District Court”) declared the housing allocation order of 7 February 1999 null and void and issued an order to evict the applicant. In particular, the District Court held as follows:
“...It follows from the materials of the case that the housing allocation order No. 842 of 7 February 1999 in respect of accommodation situated in Grozny...in the name of Darsigova Ruket Magomedovna has been issued as an assignment of housing.
It follows from the expert certificate No. 11 of 11 April 2008 that the above order was sent for an expert examination and the experts concluded that the order no. 842 of 7 February 1999 ... did not correspond to the date on which it had been issued. The impress of a seal of the Leninskiy District of Grozny [on the order] had been made with the help of an improvised cliché which in its turn had been made with a help of a computer on the basis of an impress of the authentic seal.
It follows from the expert report of 24 October 2008 no. 1397, 1398/1-2 that the formsheet of order No. 842 of 7 February 1999 had been made with the help of electrophotographic imaging on the copy machine. The colour used - dry toner.
Therefore, the court has established that the title document order no. 842 of 7 February 1999 ...had not been made typographically.
Those circumstances follow from the content of the statement of claim, parties’ submissions in the court, they have not been contested by the parties and are confirmed by evidence submitted [to the court].
The request by the Administration of Grozny for restauration of the three-year time-limit for lodging of their claim for declaring the order null should be granted.
The court has assessed the whole of evidence submitted by the parties and finds that it is possible to grant the claimant’s claim...”
12.  In her appeal against the judgment of 24 February 2009 the applicant submitted that in taking the decision to evict her the District Court had not examined whether she had been in need of housing or not. In particular, the District Court had not taken into account that she had been provided with a one-room flat on the grounds that she had cumulated a very long term of service and had no other housing.
13.  On 9 June 2009 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya (“the Supreme Court”) upheld that judgment. In particular, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“...
It has been established in the court hearing that order No. 842 of 7 February 1999 issued by the administration of the Leninskiy District of Grozny to R.M. Darsigova and giving her the right to move in flat no. 40 at 42, Kadyrov street in Grozny was sent for an expert examination...The expert examination established that the order did not correspond to the date on which it had been issued. The impress of a seal of the Leninskiy District of Grozny [on the order] had been made with the help of an improvised cliché which in its turn had been made with a help of a computer on the basis of an impress of the authentic seal...
...
Having regards to the above, the court of first instance had concluded that the claims submitted by the administration of Grozny had to be granted. In such circumstances, the civil chamber does not find any grounds for quashing the court decision ...”
14.  After her eviction the applicant returned living to her mother’s flat and on 26 July 2011 she was registered as living in that flat.