6.  The applicants are from four families. 7.  On various dates in the 1990s the employer of the adult male applicants (applicants 1, 3, 5 and 10), the security service of the Ministry of Finance, provided them with accommodation in its dormitory building in Moscow. They were registered as living in the building on a temporary basis. 8.  In 2001 the right of operational management in respect of the dormitory building was transferred to the Federal Treasury (“the Treasury”). 9.  The adult female applicants (applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13) submitted that they had been residing in the dormitory building with their husbands since their marriages in 2002, 2004, 2003 and 2005 respectively. 10.  Between 2003 and 2009 applicants 2, 6, 7, 9 and 12 were born and started living in the dormitory building with their parents. 11.  The third and fifth applicants resigned from the security service in 2004 and 2009 respectively, but continued to live in the dormitory building. According to the Government, the first applicant was dismissed from the security service in 2014. The tenth applicant is still employed by the security service. 12.  The adult male applicants are registered as living in the dormitory building on a permanent basis. Each family occupies a room in the building. 13.  The Government submitted that they had not disposed of any information as regards the exact dates when the applicants had moved into the dormitory building. 14.  In 2007 the Treasury brought court proceedings against the adult female applicants, seeking their eviction from the particular rooms which they occupied in the dormitory building. The Treasury submitted that the respondents had moved in unlawfully, without its permission. 15.  On 14 September 2007 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) ordered the eviction of applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13 without providing them with any alternative accommodation. In particular, the District Court established the following:
(i) the building in question was federal property; it was used as a dormitory building under the operative management of the Treasury;
(ii) the dormitories had been designed for the temporary accommodation of persons during the period of their work, service or studies;
(iii) the adult female applicants had been moved into the dormitory building by their husbands when the old Housing Code had been in force, prior to 1 March 2005;
(iv) the Ministry of Finance had never issued any decision providing the adult female applicants with accommodation in that dormitory building;
(v) no tenancy agreements had been concluded with the adult female applicants’ husbands in respect of the premises which they occupied;
(vi) social tenancy agreements could be concluded with people living in dormitory buildings only in the event that the property was liquidated, however such a decision had not been taken in respect of the dormitory building in question.
Having regard to the above, the District Court concluded that Articles 53 and 54 of the old Housing Code and Articles 69 and 70 of the new Housing Code, which allowed tenants under a social tenancy agreement to move members of their families into a property, were not applicable to the adult female applicants, and therefore they had to be evicted from the occupied housing without any alternative accommodation being provided. The District Court noted that it had also taken into account that the adult female applicants had been registered as living in various regions of Russia and the Republic of Moldova, where they retained a right of occupation in respect of living premises. 16.  On 22 November 2007 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) upheld the eviction order. 17.  In January 2008 bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings. In March 2008 those proceedings were terminated, as the creditor recalled the writ of execution. 18.  On 5 February 2009 new enforcement proceedings were instituted. However, on 28 August 2009 they were terminated, on the grounds that it was impossible to enforce the writ of execution. 19.  In 2009 the Treasury brought new eviction proceedings against the adult female applicants. This time, the Treasury sought to evict them from the dormitory building, regardless of which rooms they were occupying. The Treasury claimed that those applicants had started living on the premises without its permission. 20.  The applicants concerned lodged a counterclaim, seeking to have their right to occupy the dormitory building premises recognised. They submitted that they had been residing in the building lawfully as spouses of the persons to whom the housing had been provided, and in any event, under domestic law (Article 20 of the Civil Code, and Articles 31 and 54 of the Family Code (see “Relevant domestic law” below), they had a right to live together with their husbands and children. 21.  Local authorities – which had been invited to participate in the proceedings as third parties – were against the eviction of the adult female applicants. They claimed that the applicants who were minors were registered as living in the dormitory building and lived there with their families. The Family Code provided that parents had equal rights, obligations and responsibilities in raising their child, and therefore eviction of the mothers would make it difficult for them to comply with their parental duties. The local authorities asked the District Court to take the interests of the minor applicants into account when making its decision and to dismiss the eviction claims. 22.  On 14 April 2010 the District Court ordered the eviction of applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13 from the dormitory building and dismissed their counterclaim. In particular, the District Court referred to its findings in the judgment of 14 September 2007, with reference to Articles 301 and 305 of the Civil Code (see “Relevant domestic law” below), and found that:
 (i) irrespective of their status as family members of their husbands, the adult female applicants had no right to reside in the dormitory building, since it had been designed as temporary accommodation for persons working for the security service; and
(ii) no tenancy agreement on occupying the dormitory building premises had been concluded with their husbands, and therefore the provisions of Article 100 § 5 of the Housing Code, which allowed tenants to be joined by family members, were not applicable to them.
The District Court further stated that it had taken into account that the adult female applicants could decide themselves with which parent their minor children should live, especially as they (the adult female applicants) had been registered as living in various regions of Russia and the Republic of Moldova, where they retained a right of occupation in respect of living premises. 23.  The adult female applicants appealed against the eviction order. They submitted in particular that the courts had not indicated which rights, freedoms and interests of the claimant (the Treasury) had been breached when their husbands had moved them into the dormitory building, or which rights would be breached if they were allowed to stay living together with their children in the building. They also submitted that, by taking the decision to evict them, the District Court had breached their right to respect for their family life. In particular, they drew the attention of the appeal court to the position of the District Court as regards their minor children’s place of residence, a position which, in their opinion, was in breach of Article 54 of the Family Code (see “Relevant domestic law” below). 24.  On 24 November 2010 the City Court upheld the eviction order. The City Court referred to the findings of the District Court in the judgments of 14 September 2007 and 14 April 2010. The City Court found that the District Court had duly assessed the adult female applicants’ arguments and dismissed them on the basis of the applicable domestic law. The City Court further held that the adult female applicants’ argument that the eviction order had de facto prohibited their families from living together had aimed to reassess the conclusions of the judgment of the District Court and, given the fresh conclusion that the District Court had duly assessed the arguments before it, could not serve as a basis for quashing the judgment. 25.  It appears that the eviction order has not yet been enforced, and applicants 4, 8, 11 and 13 continue to live in the dormitory building. 26.  On an unspecified date the applicants were put on the municipal housing list. 27.  On an unspecified date the adult male applicants brought court proceedings against various authorities, including the Government of Moscow and the Government of the Russian Federation, seeking to have their right to occupy the dormitory building indefinitely under a social tenancy agreement recognised. Those applicants brought proceedings on their own behalf, but also in the name of and on behalf of the minor applicants. 28.  On 17 August 2011 the District Court granted the claims of the adult male applicants and the minor applicants in part. In particular, the court established that the adult male applicants had been moved into the dormitory building by their employer, the security service of the Ministry of Finance, between 1990 and 1995. Therefore, on the date the new Housing Code had entered into force, they had already worked for the security service for more than ten years. In accordance with the applicable law, the adult male applicants could not be evicted from the residential accommodation which they occupied without being provided with alternative accommodation, and therefore their right to reside there was not limited by the duration of their work contracts and was therefore unlimited in terms of duration. However, the District Court held that the claimants were not entitled to have social tenancy agreements in this respect. 29.  On 16 February 2012 the City Court upheld that judgment. 30.  On 15 August 2017 the applicants informed the Court of changes in their family situations. In particular, on 28 June 2012 the youngest son of the Popov family, Grigory, was born, and the Ozerov family had twin daughters, Valeria and Maria, on 15 June 2012, and a son, Maxim, on 7 October 2015.