4.  The applicants are Russian nationals. They were owners of flats in Moscow. The municipal authorities reclaimed the flats, and the applicants’ title to the real property in question was annulled. 5.  In 1977 a number of flats in a residential building located at 15-3 Ulitsa Tsyurupy, Moscow, were assigned by the City of Moscow to the Ministry of Communications. The flats were used as temporary housing for foreign specialists seconded to the Ministry. In 1991 the flats were transferred to the Rostelekom Open Joint Stock Company, the Ministry’s successor. On 18 February 2009 the flats were transferred from Rostelekom to the City of Moscow. It appears that the flats remained vacant. 6.  In 2008-2009 a group of people, including a police officer, a lawyer, a notary and several Rostelekom employees, forged documents pertaining to three flats located at 15-3 Ulitsa Tsyurupy, Moscow, showing that the flats were owned by private individuals and, following their deaths, were inherited by their “heirs”. The relevant property deeds were forged by notary K. and then registered by the City Registration Department. Then the “heirs” sold the flats to private parties. Subsequently the flats were bought by the applicants. Each transaction with the flats was reviewed and approved by the City Registration Department. 7.  On 8 August 2012 a criminal investigation was opened into the City’s loss of title to the flats. 8.  On 7 December 2012 the Housing Department of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) was recognised as a victim of the crime. 9.  On 9 December 2013 the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow found nine defendants, including several Rostelekom employees, guilty of fraud. The court established, inter alia, that the defendants had forged the documents and had had unlawfully registered the flats as private property to the detriment of the City of Moscow. Notary K. was questioned as a witness. 10.  On 11 March 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 9 December 2013 on appeal. 11.  According to the Government, notary K. was also found guilty of fraud and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. 12.  In 2014 the Housing Department brought civil actions seeking restitution of the flats. 13.  The Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims. The court invalidated the transactions in respect of the flats and the applicants’ title to the flats and ordered their eviction. The court applied the domestic law provisions which allowed the owner to recover its property from a bona fide purchaser if the said property left the owner’s possession against its will. The court considered that the City of Moscow had not had intent to divest itself of the flats and had a right to recover the stolen flats from the applicants. 14.  The Moscow City Court upheld the judgments of the District Court on appeal. As regards Ms Titova (application nos. 4919/16), the City Court discerned no evidence in the material of the case file that would substantiate her claim that she had bought the flat in good faith. The City Court took into account that she had bought the flat a month and a half after the previous transaction and that the purchase price of the flat had been obviously lower than its market value. In the City Court’s view, Ms Titova, if having acted with due care and diligence, should have had doubts as to the legitimacy of seller’s title and sale of the flat. 15.  Subsequently, the City Court refused to grant the applicants leave to bring a cassation appeal against the judgments in their respective cases. 16.  According to the Government, the applicants were not evicted and continue to reside in the flats. 17.  The details pertaining to each case are summed up in Appendix II below.