5.  The applicants were born on 18 September 1971 and 24 December 1994 respectively and live in Moscow. 6.  A two-roomed flat at 29-1-26 Ozernaya Ulitsa, Moscow, was owned by the city. G. and her son resided there as tenants under the social housing agreement with the city. 7.  On 16 November 2002 G. died. On 17 September 2003 the municipal authorities de-registered her tenancy. 8.  On 3 October 2003 G.’s son died. On an unspecified date the municipal authorities de-registered his tenancy. 9.  On an unspecified date A. submitted a forged copy of a court judgment to the Department of the Municipal Housing and Housing Policy (the “Housing Department”) recognising her right to reside in the flat and on 9 February 2005 the Housing Department entered into a social housing lease agreement with A. and her family. 10.  On 25 February 2005 the Housing Department transferred the title to the flat to A., her husband and her daughter under the privatisation scheme. 11.  On 15 December 2005 A. and her husband sold the flat to the applicant. On 29 December 2005 the city registration body issued a certificate confirming the first applicant’s title to the flat. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there. 12.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department obtained information that the court judgment submitted by A. might have been forged and on 15 December 2005 the housing authorities asked the prosecutor’s office to conduct a relevant inquiry. 13.  On 20 March 2008 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow invalidated the social housing lease agreement of 9 February 2005 and the privatisation agreement of 25 February 2005. 14.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department brought an action against the applicants seeking the transfer of the flat to the city and the applicants’ eviction. 15.  On 9 October 2009 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. 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 previous owner who had been deprived of the property against his or her will. The first applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court also ordered the applicants’ eviction. The applicants appealed. 16.  On 25 February 2010 the City Court upheld the judgment of 9 October 2009 on appeal. 17.  On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings. 18.  On 12 March 2012 the District Court granted the applicant’s additional time to comply with the judgment of 9 October 2009. The applicants were required to vacate the flat by 1 August 2012. On 14 May 2012 the City Court upheld the said decision on appeal. 19.  The applicants continued to reside in the flat. On 14 August 2013 the Housing Department entered into a housing agreement with them in respect of the flat for a term of five years.