5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in St Petersburg. 6.  In 1972 the applicant’s grandmother M. was provided with a flat under a social tenancy agreement. Her son, the applicant’s uncle, lived in the flat until his death in November 1998. 7.  In 1995 the applicant’s uncle admitted that he was the father of a newborn baby boy A., whose mother was G., and at his request the boy was registered as living in the flat as the grandson of M. 8.  In November 1998 the applicant’s uncle died. 9.  In December 1998 the applicant moved into the flat with her grandmother and, with the written consent of her grandmother, the authorities registered her as living in the flat as M.’s granddaughter. 10.  In October 2004 the applicant and her grandmother brought court proceedings against G., as she was the legal representative of A., who was a minor. Their statement of claim, as far as relevant, read as follows:
“My son, Moshkin Yuriy ..., had close relations with the defendant [G.]. In May 1995 she [G.] gave birth to a baby boy, A. Moshkin Yu. M. acknowledged his paternity in respect of his son A., and registered him as living in our dwelling. A., a minor, never moved into our flat, since his mother, the defendant in the present case, lives in a neighbouring apartment building in a three-room flat, together with her parents. ...
Moshkin Yuriy, the father of A., a minor, died in November 1998.
The charges for the flat increase every year. We, the claimants, have an income which is below the minimum wage. I have been classed as having a second-degree disability, whereas Ansimova Dinara [the applicant] is a student...
The defendant does not pay communal charges for her son, who is registered as living in the flat...
Taking into account that A., a minor born in 1995, was registered as living in our dwelling but never moved in, he has not acquired any right to those living premises, since registration is an administrative act.
In accordance with Article 20 of the Civil Code, the place of residence of minors under the age of 14 is the place of residence of their legal representatives – their parents. A., born in 1995, has acquired a right to the living premises where his mother [G.] lives...” 11.  The applicant and her grandmother asked the court to declare that G.’s son had not acquired any right to use the flat. Later, they submitted additional claims, seeking to recover from G. the amounts they had paid for communal charges. In particular, they submitted that G. had started paying charges in April 2005, after they had brought court proceedings against her. They also submitted that they had already accumulated debts for communal charges. 12.  G. brought a counterclaim against the applicant and her grandmother, seeking the applicant’s eviction from the flat. She submitted in particular that after the death of her son’s father, the applicant, who had been living in the flat, and her grandmother had changed the locks and had not let her and her son into the flat. She submitted that in 2003 she had got married and that she and her son were now living in her husband’s flat. 13.  In October 2005 the applicant’s grandmother died. Following her death, the applicant amended her claims. She asked the court to acknowledge that she was the tenant of the flat and to oblige the district administration to conclude a social tenancy agreement with her. The applicant submitted the following arguments in support of her claims.
(a)  She had been living in the flat with her grandmother since 1984 and since 1998 had been registered there as M.’s granddaughter. They had lived as a family in a shared household, and she had taken care of her grandmother. On several occasions the authorities had acknowledged that she and her grandmother were a low-income family, and had awarded them a housing allowance.
(b)  She had renovated the flat at her own expense.
(c)  G.’s son had been registered as living in the flat, but had never lived there. He had always lived with G. in the three-room flat which she owned.
(d)  G. had not been paying her son’s share of the charges for the flat. 14.  G. also submitted additional claims, seeking to have her son’s entitlement to the flat acknowledged and asking for the applicant to be deregistered from the flat. This time, G. submitted that the applicant had never moved into the flat and had never lived there. 15.  On 25 April 2007 the Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s eviction from the flat. The District Court further held that G.’s son had a right of occupation and that the district administration had to conclude a social tenancy agreement with him. 16.  On 19 July 2007 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the judgment of 25 April 2007 as regards the part concerning the applicant’s eviction and the obligation on the district administration to conclude a social tenancy agreement with G.’s son. The matter was remitted to the District Court for fresh examination. The City Court held in particular that, in coming to the conclusion that the applicant had not proved that she had moved into the flat as a family member of her grandmother and in taking a decision to evict the applicant, the District Court had not made any assessment of the fact that the applicant’s grandmother had initially brought the court proceedings together with the applicant and had never challenged the applicant’s right to occupy the flat. The City Court also pointed out that the District Court had not assessed other evidence submitted by the applicant confirming that she had carried out repair and decoration works in the flat, photographs of the applicant with her grandmother which had been taken in the disputed flat, or other evidence submitted by the applicant. 17.  On 5 March 2008 the District Court ordered the applicant’s eviction, following a fresh examination. The District Court found, with reference to Articles 53 and 54 of the Housing Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (see “Relevant domestic law” below) that both the applicant and G.’s son were registered as living in the flat as the grandchildren of M., the previous tenant. The court considered that G. had proved that her son had moved into the flat and had lived there for some time, but had not been able to move back because the applicant had not let him in. The court considered that the applicant had not proved that she had moved into the flat as her grandmother’s family member and had shared the same household and taken care of her. The court concluded that the applicant had to be evicted from the flat without being provided with alternative accommodation. 18.  The applicant appealed against that judgment. She submitted in particular that the District Court had not made any assessment of the fact that she and her grandmother had initially brought court proceedings together as members of the same family, and that her grandmother had never challenged her right to occupy the flat. Nor had the District Court taken into account her submissions that she had been living in the flat in question since childhood, that her grandmother had asked the authorities to register her as living in the flat, and that in 2000 and 2001 the welfare authorities had declared that they were a poor family. A., a minor, had always lived with his mother G. in a three-room flat which G. owned. 19.  On 19 June 2008 the City Court upheld that judgment. The City Court held in particular that in taking its decision in the case, the court of first instance had assessed all the evidence in the case, including the witness testimony, and had reasonably indicated that A. had acquired the right to use the disputed living premises because he had been moved into the flat as a tenant’s family member in accordance with the procedure provided for by law. Therefore, the court of first instance had come to the right conclusion that the claims brought by G., the mother of A., had to be granted. The City Court agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that the applicant’s claims had to be dismissed because the applicant had not proved that she had moved into the disputed flat and had shared the same household as the tenant, M., her grandmother. Her registration as living in that flat had been of an administrative nature and had not provided her with any right to live there. In such circumstances, the judgment of the court of first instance had been lawful and duly reasoned. The City Court further held that the grounds of the applicant’s appeal had aimed to reassess the evidence in the case, and that, given the fresh conclusion that the court of first instance had duly assessed the evidence before it, those grounds could not serve as a basis for quashing the judgment. 20.  On an unspecified date the applicant was evicted from the flat. 21.  In January 2009 the administration of the Nevskiy District of St Petersburg concluded a social tenancy agreement with A. in respect of the flat in question. 22.  On 17 February 2009 the applicant was registered as living in a communal flat in which her husband owned a room. 23.  On 30 December 2009 the flat from which the applicant had been evicted was transferred to A. by way of privatisation. 24.  On 31 December 2009 the applicant, her husband and her daughter were placed on the municipal housing list as persons in need of housing.