5.  The applicants in this case are Natalya Sergeyevna Ponyayeva, who was born on 7 July 1978, and her two daughters, Svetlana Aleksandrovna Oleneva, born on 18 March 2006, and Anastasiya Aleksandrovna Oleneva, born on 11 July 2000. The applicants live in Moscow. 6.  Prior to its privatisation, the flat at 83-3-4 Ulitsa Svobody, Moscow, had been owned by the City of Moscow. Ol. had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the City. 7.  On 13 August 2003 Ol. was tried for having made a fake terror threat. He was relieved from criminal liability and committed to a psychiatric institution for treatment. 8.  On 3 February 2004, when Ol. was still undergoing inpatient treatment, an unidentified person applied for a new passport on his behalf and asked notary B. to issue two powers of attorney authorising several persons to carry out transactions on Ol.’s behalf in respect of the flat. 9.  On 9 March 2004 the Department of Housing of the City of Moscow (the “Housing Department”) transferred the title to the flat to Ol. under a privatisation scheme. The privatisation agreement on behalf of Ol. was signed by a person acting by virtue of the power of attorney of 3 February 2004 and subsequently registered by the Moscow City Department of the Federal Registration Service (the “Registration Service”). 10.  On 1 April 2004 B. and K. bought the flat from Ol. On 13 April 2004 the Registration Service registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed confirming B. and K.’s title to the flat. 11.  On 12 January 2005 the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow granted a claim lodged by B. against Ol. In particular, the court found that the latter had forfeited the right to reside in the flat and annulled his residence registration. 12.  On 10 March 2006 B. and K. sold the flat to the first applicant. The Registration Service registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed confirming the applicant’s title to the flat. 13.  On 31 January 2006 the prosecutor’s office received a complaint from N., an acquaintance of Ol., in which she alleged that the latter had been fraudulently deprived of the flat. On 14 March 2006 the district department of the interior opened a criminal investigation into the matter. According to the Government, the investigation is pending to date. 14.  On 14 May 2008 the inter-district prosecutor brought a civil claim on behalf of Ol. and the Housing Department behalf seeking invalidation of the privatisation and subsequent transactions in respect of the flat. 15.  On 2 July 2010 the District Court granted the prosecutor’s claim. In particular, it established that Ol.’s signatures on the power of attorney authorising third parties to act on his behalf in respect of the flat and his signature on other related documents had been forged. The court conceded that the first applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat. However, it 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, in this case the City of Moscow. In this connection, the court reasoned that Ol.’s rights could be adequately protected only by means of restoring the City of Moscow’s ownership in respect of the flat. The first applicant’s title to the flat was annulled and the ownership was transferred to the City of Moscow. The court further recognised Ol.’s right to reside in the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction. The applicants appealed. 16.  On 6 April 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 2 July 2010, in substance, on appeal. 17.  According to the Government, the title to the flat was not transferred to the City of Moscow and the applicants continued to reside in the flat.