4.  The applicants were born in 1981 and 2006 respectively and live in Moscow. The first applicant is the second applicant’s father.
5.  Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 4-1-25, 12-ya Novokuzminskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Spouses V.F. and G.F resided there under the social housing agreement with the City.
6.  On an unspecified date V.F. applied for the privatisation of the flat. His wife chose not to participate in the transaction. On 22 August 2002 V.F. and the Housing Department signed a privatisation agreement.
7.  On 14 May 2004 V.F. sold the flat to L.M., the first applicant’s mother. According to the text of the sale contract, L.M. paid RUB 300,000 to V.F. for the flat. According to the applicants, in reality, L.M. had paid RUB 2,500,000.
8.  On 28 September 2006 L.M. died. The first applicant inherited the flat after her death. His family, including the second applicant, moved in and resided there. According to the official documents, V.F. did not move out and also continued to reside in the flat. According to the applicants, V.F. moved to the suburbs, but they let him keep the flat registered as his place of residence so that he could continue to receive social benefits in Moscow.
9.  On 10 July 2007 the first applicant transferred the title to half of the flat to his sister by way of gift.
10.  On 22 April 2011 V.F. lodged a complaint with law enforcement authorities. He alleged that he had not sold the flat to his relative L.M. and that he had not received any money from her. He had continued to live in the flat and had let the first applicant move into the flat temporarily in view of the problems the latter had been having with his wife. In May 2010 V.F. and the first applicant had had a fight and V.F. had asked the first applicant to move out. The first applicant had refused claiming to be the owner of the flat. He had kicked V.F. out of the flat. After that V.F. had been able to have access to the flat only with the support of the police or the neighbours.
11.  On 5 July 2011 the prosecutor, acting in the interests of V.F., brought a civil action seeking the annulment of the first applicant’s title to the flat and eviction of his family.
12.  On 15 November 2012 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow granted the claims in full. The court established that, at the time of the privatisation and sale of flat, V.F. had not been able to understand his actions or control them. It relied on the forensic experts’ findings that “V.F. suffered from organic personality syndrome and vascular dementia which had developed long before he had applied for privatisation of the flat on 22 August 2002 and sale of the flat on 14 May 2004. [His condition] had prevented him from understanding his actions or controlling them.” The court invalidated all the transactions with the flat and transferred it to the ownership of the City of Moscow. Lastly, the court ordered the applicants’ eviction.
13.  On 29 April 2013 the District Court issued a supplementary judgment refusing to apply the statute of limitations to the prosecutor’s claims in V.F.’s interest.
14.  On 12 November 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgments of 15 November 2012 and 29 April 2013 on appeal.
15.  On 13 March 2014 the City Court rejected the applicants’ cassation appeal.
16.  On 27 November 2013 the District Court issued a writ of enforcement in respect of the judgment of 15 November 2012 indicating V.F. as the beneficiary.
17.  On 3 December 2013 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings.
18.  On 30 January 2014 the applicants were evicted. According to the eviction report prepared by the bailiff, V.F. received the keys to the flat and could reside there.
19.  On 16 April 2014 the Housing Department signed a social housing agreement with V.F. and on 20 November 2014 the title to the flat was transferred to V.F. under the privatisation scheme.