4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in St Petersburg. 5.  According to the applicant, in 1994 she moved in with her partner, N., who lived in a flat in St Petersburg of which he was the sole owner. 6.  The applicant alleged that on 7 April 1998 her partner had borrowed 18,000 United States dollars from her for a period of two years. He had undertaken to give her his flat if he failed to repay her. 7.  In 1998 the applicant was registered as living in that flat and lived there with N. for the following fifteen years. They never married. 8.  On 9 May 2013 N. died intestate. 9.  In October 2013 the applicant instituted court proceedings seeking to have her property rights over her partner’s flat acknowledged on account of usucaption. 10.  On 17 June 2014 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) dismissed the applicant’s claims, having found that although she had lived in the flat since 1994, there were no grounds to acknowledge her property rights to that flat on account of usucaption. 11.  On 30 September 2014 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) upheld that judgment. 12.  On 4 March 2015 a judge of the City Court refused to refer a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant to the court of cassation. 13.  In 2015 the administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg (“the district administration”) brought court proceedings against the applicant, seeking her eviction from the flat. The administration claimed that the flat was an heirless estate and therefore the property rights to it had to be transferred to the administration. The district administration, as the new owner of the flat, had the right to seek the applicant’s eviction in accordance with Article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. 14.  The applicant contested those claims on the following grounds:
 -  she and N. had been living in the flat since 1994 as husband and wife;
 -  she had shared a common household with N.;
 -  N. had let her live in the flat as his family member;
 -  she had been paying the charges for the flat;
 -  she had no other housing. 15.  On 23 November 2015 the District Court refused to evict the applicant from the flat. The court found, with reference to Article 31 of the Housing Code, that N. had let the applicant live in the flat as a family member, and until his death had shared a common household with her. Therefore, after N.’s death the applicant had not lost the right to live in the flat. 16.  In its appeal against that judgment the district administration submitted that it had become the owner of the flat on 10 May 2013 following the death of the applicant’s partner. Therefore the applicant’s right to use that flat had come to an end on the same date. The district administration asked the appeal court to quash the judgment of 23 November 2015 and to issue a new decision granting its eviction claim against the applicant. 17.  On 25 April 2016 the City Court quashed the judgment of 23 November 2015 and ordered the applicant’s eviction from the flat. The City Court held as follows:
“...
The owner of the flat in question, Mr Nikolayev A.A., who had let the defendant live in [the flat], died on 9 May 2013.
...
Taking into account that none of the heirs of Mr Nikolayev A.A. had come into an inheritance, ..., the property right to flat no. 20 at 11, Marshal Novikov street in St Petersburg, which was a heirless estate, had been transferred to the city of St Petersburg from the moment the inheritance had been opened, and in accordance with the law it belongs to social housing which is managed by the administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg.
...
Mrs Valdgardt Ye.V. [the applicant] had been allowed to live in the flat by the former owner. However, following the death of the owner and the transfer of the property rights in respect of the flat to the City of St Petersburg pursuant to Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of Mrs Valdgardt to use the contested flat had come to an end.
Taking into account that there are no legal grounds which would allow Mrs Valdgardt to continue living in the flat and also because the defendant had not vacated the flat voluntarily, the claims of the administration of the Primorskiy District to evict the defendant from the residential premises should be granted ...” 18.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the presidium of the City Court. She submitted, in particular, that the City Court had not taken into account that she was in need of housing and had been put on a municipal housing list. 19.  On 15 July 2016 a judge of the City Court refused to refer the applicant’s appeal to the cassation court. The judge noted, in particular, that the fact that the applicant was on a housing list had no legal relevance for the case. 20.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. She submitted, in particular, that the City Court had failed to examine the proportionality of her eviction in violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 21.  On 22 August 2016 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the cassation court. 22.  On 5 April 2017 the District Court issued a writ of execution. 23.  On 15 May 2017 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings. 24.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs service informed the applicant that if the writ of execution was not enforced by 8.30 a.m. on 26 July 2017, a forced eviction would be carried out at 9 a.m. on 26 July 2017 with the assistance of the police and bailiffs.