4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. 5.  The flat at 137A-9-267 Samarkandskiy Boulevard, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. G. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. On 21 February 2007 G. died. 6.  On an unspecified date G.’s daughter Get. submitted to a local real estate registration body a forged copy of a court’s decision recognising her as G.’s heir and asked the latter to confirm her title to the flat at 137A-9-267 Samarkandskiy Boulevard, Moscow. On 19 March 2008, following the expert review of her application, she obtained the relevant certificate. 7.  On 17 April 2008 Get. sold the flat to N. On 28 May 2008, following the expert review of the transaction, N. was issued with a certificate confirming his title to the flat. 8.  On 28 July 2008 N. sold the flat to the applicant. On 28 August 2008, following the expert review of the transaction, the applicant obtained a certificate confirming his ownership in respect of the flat. He and his family moved into the flat and resided there. 9.  On 15 May 2009 the police opened a criminal investigation into the fraudulent acquisition of the flat by Get. The Government did not inform of the outcome of the proceedings. 10.  On an unspecified date the Department for Municipal Housing and Housing Policy of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department) brought a civil claim seeking (1) the annulment of the entry in the real estate register confirming the existence of Get.’s title to the flat; (2) annulment of the flat purchase agreements between Get. and N. and N. and the applicant; (3) transfer of the ownership to the flat to the City of Moscow; and (4) the applicant’s eviction. 11.  On 19 June 2009 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims. The court ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that precedence be given to the City of Moscow as a previous owner who had been deprived of the property against its will. The applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the ownership of the flat was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicant’s eviction. The applicant appealed. 12.  On 29 September 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 19 June 2009 on appeal. 13.  On 25 January and 12 May 2011 the applicant unsuccessfully lodged an application with the Housing Department asking for provision of housing. 14.  On 13 December 2011 the applicant was evicted from the flat. 15.  According to the Government, on 16 July 2012 the Housing Department assigned the flat as social housing to a family of four. On 25 April 2014 the ownership of the flat was transferred to them under the privatisation scheme. 16.  On 19 June 2009 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims against N. and awarded him 990,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages. 17.  On 12 October 2011 the bailiff opened enforcement proceedings. 18.  On 15 March 2006 the bailiff discontinued enforcement proceedings as it was impossible to establish N.’s whereabouts or to obtain information about his assets. 19.  According to the Government, the enforcement proceedings are still pending. The judgment in the applicant’s favour has not been yet enforced.