5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. 6.  Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 103-29 Dmitrovskoye Shosse, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. N. and her son B. had resided there as tenants since 1968 under the social housing agreement with the City. N. died in 1993 and B. died in 1994. 7.  On 11 June 2002 the municipal authority supervising real-property transactions in Moscow (“Moszhilservice”) authorised an exchange of flats between N., whose name had not been removed from the tenant register, and K. 8.  On 21 June 2002 Moszhilservice issued all the documents necessary for K. to move into N.’s flat. 9.  On 16 October 2002 the Moscow Housing Department transferred the title to the flat to K. under the privatisation scheme. On 11 November 2002 the Moscow City Committee for Registration of Real Estate Transactions (“the Registration Committee”) registered K.’s title to the flat. 10.  On 18 November 2002 K. sold the flat to the applicant. On 19 November 2002 the Registration Committee registered the applicant’s title to the flat. The applicant moved into the flat with his family. 11.  On 14 August 2003 the police opened a criminal investigation into the fraudulent acquisition of the flat by K. and other persons. On 14 February 2004 the investigation was suspended as the whereabouts of the alleged perpetrators had not been established. 12.  On 4 August 2014 K. died. The criminal investigation against him was closed. 13.  According to the Government, the investigation was reopened in respect of the other suspects. The proceedings are still pending. 14.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor brought a civil claim on behalf of the Moscow Department of Housing Policy and the Housing Fund (“the Housing Department”), seeking annulment of all the transactions on the flat, the applicant’s eviction and the restitution of the flat to the City of Moscow. The applicant lodged a counter-claim for damages against the City of Moscow. He claimed that the fraudulent transactions in respect of the flat had resulted from the authorities’ failure to duly verify the documents submitted by K. for exchange and privatisation of the flat. 15.  According to the applicant, his counter-claim for damages was dismissed by the court as premature. 16.  On 17 April 2006 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow granted the prosecutor’s claims. The court established that N. had died in 1993 and B. had died in 1994; that after their death they had continued to be registered as tenants residing in the flat; that the flat allegedly exchanged by K. had never existed; that all the documents submitted by K. for the exchange of flats had been forged and that all the data indicated therein, including the name of the street and the names of the registrar and the notary, had been false. The court invalidated the exchange of flats between N. and K. It further considered that K. had defrauded the City of Moscow by submitting falsified documents for the exchange and privatisation of the flat, which should be construed as execution of the relevant transaction in the absence of intent to do so on the party of the City of Moscow. The court reinstated the City’s title to the flat and ordered the applicant’s eviction. 17.  On 24 October 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The court confirmed that the lower court had correctly applied legal provisions which allowed the lawful owner of the property to recover it from a bona fide purchaser. 18.  On an unspecified date the applicant reintroduced his claim against the City of Moscow for damages. 19.  On 12 May 2008 the Presnenskiy District Court dismissed the claim. The court discerned no causal link between the applicant’s loss of title to the flat and the respondent’s actions. 20.  On 18 September 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 21.  On 5 February 2007 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 April 2006. 22.  On 1 June 2007 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow suspended for six months the enforcement of the part of the judgment concerning the applicant’s eviction. The applicant continued to reside in the flat. 23.  On 5 March 2012 the Registration Committee registered the City’s title to the flat. 24.  It appears that the bailiffs service lost the writ of enforcement and on 30 March 2012 the Housing Department applied for a duplicate. 25.  On 29 May 2012 the District Court issued a duplicate of the writ of enforcement. 26.  On 22 June 2012 the City Court upheld the decision of 29 May 2012 on appeal. 27.  On 31 August 2012 the bailiff opened enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 April 2006. 28.  On 4 December 2012 the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant to pay a fine of 500 Russian roubles for his failure to comply with the writ of enforcement in due time. 29.  On 28 December 2013 the applicant rented another flat for the period from January to March 2014. 30.  On 28 March 2014 the District Court suspended the eviction proceedings for one year and the applicant moved back into the flat. 31.  On 11 February 2014 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued as the Housing Department had withdrawn the writ of enforcement. 32.  According to the Government, on 12 February 2014 the Housing Department entered into a one-year social tenancy agreement with the applicant in respect of the flat, pending the resolution of his housing problem. On 25 August 2014 the Housing Department entered into a permanent social tenancy agreement with the applicant. 33.  On 10 October 2014 the Housing Department transferred ownership of the flat to the applicant under the privatisation scheme.