4.  The applicants were owners of flats in Moscow and Yekaterinburg. The municipal authorities reclaimed the flats, and the applicants’ title to the real property in question was annulled. 5.  Ye. resided in the flat at 7-1-50 Ulitsa Burakova, Moscow, under a social housing agreement. On 12 December 2003 Ye. died. 6.  On 22 December 2003 an unidentified person using the documents in the name of A. (hereinafter referred to as “A.”) had the flat registered as her place of residence and moved into the flat. As it was later established by the police, A. submitted to the registration authorities a written consent for her registration in the flat allegedly signed by Ye. on 11 December 2003. 7.  On 28 August 2007 the Housing Department transferred the ownership of the flat to A. under the privatisation scheme. A.’s title to the flat was verified and registered by state authorities. 8.  On 10 October 2007 A. sold the flat to the applicant. The transaction and the applicant’s title to the flat were verified and registered by state authorities. 9.  According to the Government, the applicant did not move into the flat. She rented it to a third party. 10.  On 15 February 2010 the police opened a criminal investigation into the fraudulent acquisition of the flat by A. The Government did not inform of its outcome. 11.  On 16 May 2012 the Housing Department brought a civil claim seeking invalidation of all the transactions with the flat, transfer of the title to the flat to the City of Moscow, and the applicant’s eviction. 12.  On 19 December 2012 the Izmailovskiy District Court of Moscow granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court considered the housing and privatisation agreements to the benefit of A. to be null and void and reinstated the City’s title to the flat. The court also dismissed the applicant’s argument that she had bought a flat in good faith noting that the purchase price she had paid for the flat had been below the market value. Nor had she demostrated due care or diligence when buying the flat. She “had not shown any interest in the flat or persons who had it registered as their place of residence”. Lastly, the court ordered the applicant’s eviction. The applicant appealed. 13.  On 30 May 2013 the City Court upheld the judgment of 19 December 2012 on appeal. 14.  On 11 October 2013 the City Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. 15.  The flat at 10-94 Ulitsa Shchorsa, Yekaterinburg, was owned by the City of Yekaterinburg. T. resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the city from 1966 until her death on 16 April 2009. On 5 May 2009 the municipal authorities were informed of her death and annulled her registration in the flat. 16.  On 7 May 2009 the city administration asked the police to carry out an inquiry as regards the persons residing in the flat. The police sealed off the flat. The Government did not inform of the outcome of the inquiry. 17.  On an unspecified date Tikh. applied to the state registration authorities for the registration of the sale of the flat by T. to her. According to the documents submitted with the application, on 5 June 1992 the title to the flat was transferred from the City of Yekaterinburg to T. under the privatisation scheme and on 16 January 1997 T. sold the flat to Tikh. The sale was verified and registered by the state authorities and the title to the flat was transferred to Tikh. on 5 February 2010. 18.  On 11 August 2010 Tikh. sold the flat to the applicant. The transaction was verified and registered by state authorities. 19.  On 26 November 2012 the city administration brought an action seeking the invalidation of all the transactions with the flat. 20.  On 19 December 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg invalidated the privatisation agreement and transferred the title to the City of Yekaterinburg. The court established that T. had not applied for the privatisation of the flat. Nor had she sold it to Tikh. 21.  On 19 March 2014 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 19 December 2013 on appeal.