4.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1976 respectively and live in Grozny. They are husband and wife. 5.  M. was the owner of a three-roomed flat at at 35-122, Ulitsa Starosunzhenskaya, Grozny, Chechen Republic. 6.  On 26 March 1996 M.’s husband sold the flat to A. The transaction and A.’s title to the flat were duly registered by the state authorities. 7.  On an unspecified date M. and her family moved from Grozny to the Krasnodar Region abandoning the flat. On 21 April 1998 they applied for the compensation for the loss of the flat resulting from the military conflict in Chechnya. On 22 December 2000 M. received the compensation. 8.  On 14 November 2008 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings against M.’s husband on the charges of fraud in respect of the flat as time-barred. 9.  On 24 March 2010 A. sold the flat to the second applicant. The transaction and the second applicant’s title to the flat were duly registered by the state authorities. The applicants moved into the flat and resided there. 10.  On an unspecified date the Housing Department of Grozny lodged a civil action against A. and the first applicant seeking the invalidation of the purchase of the flat by A. and claiming the title to the flat. 11.  On 7 December 2010 the District Court applied the statute of limitations to the claims lodged by the Housing Department and rejected them. 12.  On 1 February 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the judgment of 7 December 2010 on appeal. 13.  On 18 June 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozniy granted the second applicant’s claim and removed the flat from the data base listing the flats in respect of which the former owners received compensation from the State. 14.  On 30 April 2013 the District Court re-opened the case in view of newly discovered circumstances concerning a third party’s right to the reside in the flat. 15.  On an unspecified date Mur. lodged a civil action seeking the applicants’ eviction. She claimed that in 1999 the municipal authorities had assigned the flat to her under the social housing agreement. 16.  On 28 June 2011 the District Court rejected Mur.’s claims. It also invalidated the assignment of the flat to Mur. under the social housing agreement. 17.  According to the Government, on 15 November the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the judgment of 28 June 2011 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 18.  On 26 May 2014 the District Court considered the claims lodged by the second applicant and Mur. The court dismissed Mur.’s claims in full. It found that Mur. had failed to present any original document confirming the assignment of the flat to her under the social housing agreement. The court also invalidated the flat purchase agreements between (1) M.’s husband and A. and (2) the second applicant and A., recognised that the flat was the property of the Town of Grozniy and ordered the applicants’ eviction. 19.  On 11 November 2014 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the judgment of 26 May 2014 on appeal. 20.  According to the Government, the applicants were not evicted and continue to reside in the flat.