5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Lipetsk. 6.  On 18 September 2007 the applicant signed a private contract for the purchase of a flat in Lipetsk. The seller was Ms E.M.T., acting on behalf of herself and her daughter Maria, a minor. The contract stipulated that the property was not “mortgaged, encumbered by any claims of third parties, disputed or charged”. 7.  The flat in question had been allocated as social housing to Ms E.M.T. and her husband, Mr V.A.V., in 1979. They had lived there with their four children: Yelena, Mikhail, Dmitriy and Maria. Mikhail and Dmitriy were given long prison sentences in 1998 and 2004 respectively and were still serving them at the material time. Yelena moved out in 1997 to continue her studies in Dagestan. In 2006, Ms E.M.T and Maria became the sole owners of the property by way of privatisation, while Mr V.A.V., Mikhail, Dmitry and Yelena declined in writing to exercise their right to obtain their shares of the privatised flat. 8.  As the seller Ms E.M.T. delayed submitting the contract for State registration, the applicant sought a court order upholding her full title to the property. The seller Ms E.M.T. brought a counterclaim. She submitted that she was unable to move out because the purchase of the new flat for herself and her daughter Maria had not yet been finalised. However, after Ms E.M.T. failed to appear in court, on 2 April 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Lipetsk struck out the counterclaim and granted the applicant relief in the form of an order compelling State registration of her full title to the property. On 12 November 2008 the title was registered. 9.  The applicant then sued the former owner Ms E.M.T. and members of her family, seeking termination of their right to use the flat, annulment of the registration of their residence at that address, and their eviction. 10.  On 7 April 2009 the Oktyabrskiy District Court allowed her claim in part. It ordered the eviction of Ms E.M.T. and Maria, as they were no longer owners of the property, but dismissed the claim in respect of Yelena, Mikhail and Dmitriy on the following grounds:
“According to the parties, the contested property contains personal belongings and chattels of the defendants [Mikhail, Dmitriy and Yelena]; it appears from their written statements that, in declining their shares of the contested property during its privatisation, they did not intend to stop using the flat. Since there was no arrangement between the owner of the contested property and the defendants regarding the discontinuation of the right to use the property, the court considers that [Mikhail, Dmitriy and Yelena] had a right of use over the flat which was identical [in its scope] to that of the owner; accordingly, there are no legal grounds for allowing [the applicant’s] claim to declare their right of use over the flat terminated.
A change in ownership of the contested property cannot serve as an independent ground for terminating [their] right to use the flat ...
The plaintiff’s argument to the effect that [Mikhail, Dmitriy and Yelena] do not actually live in the contested property cannot serve as an independent ground for terminating [their] right of use over the flat ...
Since the defendants’ right of use over the flat is not terminated, there are no grounds for ordering their eviction ...” 11.  On 27 May 2009 the Lipetsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the District Court’s judgment.