5.  The applicants are Russian nationals. They were owners of flats in Moscow. The State authorities reclaimed the flats, and the applicants’ title to the real property in question was annulled. To date, some of the applicants have been evicted from the property. In other cases, the eviction proceedings are still pending or were discontinued.
6.  The applicant in this case is Mariya Nikolayevna Pchelintseva, who was born on 15 June 1979 and lives in Moscow.
7.  Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 4-78 Angarskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Kor. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City.
8.  On 22 February 2002 Kor. signed a power of attorney authorising G., inter alia, to conduct transactions on her behalf in respect of the said flat.
9.  On 29 May 2002 the title to the flat was transferred to Kor. under a privatisation scheme.
10.  On 2 June 2002 Kor. died.
11.  On 6 September 2002, acting by virtue of the power of attorney, G. sold the flat to A.
12.  On 12 November 2002 A. exchanged the flat for another one located at 20-2-144 Angarskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, owned by the Housing Department.
13.  On 21 November 2002 A. sold the 38.8 square metre flat at 20-2-144 Angarskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, to the applicant.
14.  On 29 March 2006 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the above-mentioned property transactions.
15.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor lodged civil claims on behalf of the City of Moscow, seeking: (1) invalidation of the power of attorney allegedly signed by Kor.; (2) invalidation of all of the above-mentioned property transactions; and (3) the applicant’s eviction.
16.  On 29 November 2006 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the prosecutor’s claims in full. The court conceded that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the previous owner. The applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicant’s eviction. The applicant appealed.
17.  On 20 March 2007 the City Court upheld the judgment of 29 November 2006 on appeal.
18.  In October 2010 the applicant was evicted from the flat. On 21 October 2010 the bailiff discontinued the eviction proceedings.
19.  On 24 February 2010 the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow granted a claim for damages lodged by the applicant against the real estate agency which had represented her in the flat purchase. The District Court awarded her, inter alia, pecuniary damages in the amount of RUB 928,000.
20.  The judgment of 24 February 2010 was not enforced because the agency had been declared insolvent.
21.  The applicant in this case is Tatyana Stanislavovna Dedik, who was born on 22 April 1973 and lives in the Moscow Region.
22.  Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 14-73 Ulitsa Grishina, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Ye. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. On 2 July 2008 Ye. died.
23.  On an unspecified date An. pasted her photograph in Ye.’s passport and applied for the privatisation of the flat where Ye. used to live. Her request was granted and title to the flat was transferred to her.
24.  On 12 January 2008 An., posing as Ye., sold the flat to the applicant.
25.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil claim seeking restitution of the flat. In their opinion, the flat belonged to the City of Moscow and the applicant should be divested of her ownership rights in respect of it.
26.  On 30 November 2010 the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the authorities’ claims in full. The court conceded that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the previous owner. The applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and title was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicant’s eviction. The applicant appealed.
27.  On 14 March 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 30 November 2010 on appeal.
28.  According to the Government, the applicant was evicted from the flat on 25 September 2012.
29.  On 14 November 2014 the City of Moscow entered into a social housing agreement with the applicant, who now resides in the flat as a tenant.
30.  The applicants in this case are Oksana Aleksandrovna Polevoda, who was born on 14 June 1974, and her two children, Yuriy Aleksandrovich Polevoda, born on 11 February 1999, and Natalya Aleksandrovna Polevoda, born on 28 November 2002. The applicants live in Moscow.
31.  Prior to its privatisation the flat at 27-3-50 Kastanayevskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. V. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. On 1 November 2001 V. died.
32.  On 10 September 2002 the local housing authorities authorised an exchange of flats between V. (whom they presumed was still alive) and S. The latter moved into the flat.
33.  On 24 December 2002 the local housing authorities authorised another exchange of flats between S. and K. On 16 April 2003 the City housing authorities transferred title to the flat to K. under the privatisation scheme.
On 8 May 2003 K. sold the flat to the first applicant.
34.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil action against the applicants. The housing authorities alleged that, in view of the fraudulent nature of the first transaction in respect of the flat, the first applicant’s title to the flat should be annulled and the flat repossessed by the City.
35.  On 24 December 2010 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the City’s claims.
36.  On 26 August 20011 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 24 December 2010 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
37.  On 13 December 2011 the District Court granted the claims against the applicants. It recognised the City’s title to the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction. The court conceded that the first applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow as the previous owner of the flat.
38.  On 26 October 2012 the City Court upheld the judgment of 13 December 2011 on appeal.
39.  According to the Government, the applicants were not evicted and continue to reside in the flat. The City of Moscow is considering the possibility of entering into a social housing agreement with them.
40.  On 20 June 2013 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the first applicant’s claim for damages against K. and awarded her, inter alia, RUB 7,649,000. K. appealed.
41.  On 16 October 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 20 June 2013 on appeal.
42.  According to the Government, the enforcement proceedings are still pending and offer a sufficient prospect of success, given the activities carried out by the bailiffs with the aim of recovering the debt from K.
43.  The applicant in this case is Svetlana Alekseyevna Dergacheva, who was born on 29 September 1960 and lives in Moscow.
44.  Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 13-2-113 Belomorskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. On 21 February 2007 the local municipal authorities assigned the flat to Yo. and her family under the social housing agreement.
45.  On 4 December 2007 the City housing authorities transferred ownership of the flat to Yo. under the privatisation scheme.
46.  On 25 February 2009 Yo. sold the flat to the applicant.
47.  On 13 October 2010 the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow found Yo. guilty of fraud. The court established that Yo. had fraudulently acquired the tenancy rights in respect of the flat.
48.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil action seeking, inter alia, the return of the flat to the City and the applicant’s eviction. The Housing Department further claimed that the applicant should not be recognised as a bona fide purchaser of the flat given that she had been Yo.s’ colleague and knew her quite well and that the price she had paid for the flat had been below its market value.
49.  On 14 February 2012 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow granted the claims against the applicant. The court noted that the Housing Department had failed to substantiate, with any evidence, their allegations that the applicant had bought the flat in bad faith and rejected them. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow, as the previous owner of the flat. Lastly, the court ordered that Yo. return to the applicant the purchase price paid by her.
50.  On 26 June 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld on appeal the part of the judgment of 14 February 2012 concerning the restitution of the City’s title to the flat and the applicant’s eviction and discontinued the proceedings as regards the repayment by Yo. of the purchase price to the applicant.
51.  The eviction proceedings are still pending.
52.  The applicants in this case are Fakir Mukhamad Gulom Mukhamad Karim, who was born on 10 May 1968, his wife Svetlana Aleksandrovna Karim, who was born on 6 July 1979[1], and their sons Gleb Fakirovich Karim, born on 17 October 2008, and Timofey Fakirovich Karim, born on 16 June[2] 2010. The applicants live in Moscow.
53.  Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 9-13 Yartsevskaya[3] Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Z. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. On 2 August 2007 Z. died.
54.  Acting by virtue of a power of attorney issued on 1 April 2008, V. signed a flat privatisation agreement on behalf of Z. on 28 April 2008 and then sold the flat to P. on 2 June 2008.
55.  On 19 August 2008 P. sold the flat to the first applicant.
56.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought a civil claim seeking restitution of its title to the flat.
57.  On 17 January 2012 the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the claim. It restored the City’s ownership of the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction. The court conceded that the first applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow as the previous owner of the flat.
58.  On 8 August 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 17 January 2012 on appeal.
59.  According to the Government, the applicants were not evicted and continue to reside in the flat. On 24 October 2014 the City authorities entered into a social tenancy agreement with the first and fourth applicants.