6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Znamensk. 7.  The applicant is a former military officer. He performed his military service and lived with his family in Znamensk, a closed administrative unit (закрытое административно-территориальное образование) of the Astrakhan Region. Since 1975 he was registered at the place of residence at 71 the 9th May avenue, apartment 18, in Znamensk. In 1998 he was dismissed from military service and registered as a person in need of housing in the city of his choosing, Moscow. 8.  In 2002 the applicant’s family of two was included in the list of persons entitled to the receipt of a housing certificate. In 2004 a domestic court declared the applicant’s son, his wife and their son (the applicant’s grand-son) the applicant’s family members. The applicant requested the housing authority to modify its earlier decision to include the above persons into the list of family members entitled to the Housing certificate. In 2006 the City Inter-Departmental Commission Responsible for the State Housing Certificates Program of the Department of the Housing Policy and Housing Fund of Moscow (the Moscow housing commission) rejected his request and annulled its decision of 2002, referring to a change of legislation concerning the financing of the resettlement from closed administrative units. The applicant challenged the refusal in court. 9.  On 9 April 2007 the Znamensk Town Court of the Astrakhan Region granted his claim, having found the reference to the legislative changes inapplicable to the applicant’s case. The court confirmed the applicant’s and his four family members’ right to housing provision in the form of the housing certificate, to be performed at the expense of the federal budget and at the place of the claimants’ registration as persons in need of housing. The court ordered the Moscow housing commission to include the applicant’s family of five in an “order list” (список-заявка) for receipt of a State housing certificate. The judgment became final on 20 April 2007. It appears that the debtor authority’s representatives were not present at the hearing and asked to examine the case in their absence, on the basis of their written submissions. 10.  According to the letter of 4 July 2017 by the Znamensk Town Court, on 6 June 2007 the court sent a copy of the judgment to the respondent authority by fax and mail. The court registry kept the transmission record stating that the fax passed “normally”. The court file contained no further documents evidencing the receipt of the judgment by the respondent. 11.  On 10 February 2011 the Department of the Housing Policy and the Housing Fund of Moscow conducted a campaign for re-registration of persons in need of housing and sent the applicant a letter setting out a list of eleven documents to be provided, including, among others, a duly certified copy the decision to dismiss the applicant stating the reasons for the dismissal, as well as documents confirming his title to the flat in Znamensk. 12.  According to the applicant, on 26 March 2011 he sent the requisite documents to the authority by mail. He submitted a copy of the request of 10 February 2011 and the postal receipt dated 26 March 2011 and containing the requesting authority’s address in the “destination” part, in support of his submissions. 13.  On 5 May 2015 the City Property Department of the Government of Moscow informed the Representative of the Russian Federation to the Court that at some point they had examined the applicant’s unspecified application concerning the housing issue. The authority established that a number of documents were missing from the applicant’s, namely, a duly certified copy of the decision to dismiss the applicant stating the reasons for the dismissal, as well as documents confirming his title to the flat in Znamensk, and invited the applicant to provide the documents. The applicant’s address specified in the letter read as follows: 71 the 9th May avenue, apartment 118. Despite several reminders, the applicant had failed to provide the requisite documents. Accordingly, on 3 July 2012 the Department of Housing Policy and Housing Fund of Moscow had decided to strike the applicant’s family off the lists of persons in need of housing. There had been no grounds to provide them with housing. The authority had not received a copy of the judgment of 9 April 2007 for execution. 14.  According to the letter of 22 August 2016 by the Department of the Housing Policy and the Housing Fund of Moscow to the Representative of the Russian Federation to the Court, the authority has not received a copy of the judgment of 9 April 2007, and the applicant had not applied “with documents” for a housing certificate. The authority further stated that, pursuant to a Decree of the Moscow Government of 14 February 2012 No. 43-ПП On Housing Provision to Some Categories of Citizens, as of that date the provision of housing certificates had been ensured by the Housing Provision Department of the Ministry of Defence. 15.  On 1 November 2011 the administration of the closed administrative unit Znamensk of the Astrakhan Region concluded a social tenancy agreement with the applicant in respect of the three-room flat in Znamensk (see paragraph 7 above). The agreement stipulated that five applicant’s family members, namely, his son, his daughter, his son’s wife and their two children moved into the flat together with the applicant. 16.  In 2016 the applicant’s son divorced from his wife. The two children remained with her. On 6 February 2017 a domestic court granted the applicant’s request to discontinue the son’s ex-wife and their children’s use of the flat. On 20 June 2017 the social-tenancy agreement of 1 November 2011 was amended to specify that the three family members (the applicant’s wife, son and daughter) moved into the flat together with the applicant.