CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 23 May 2013 and 18 November 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 41148/11 Lyudmila Fedorovna KONDRATYUK and Anton Alekseyevich KONDRATYUK against Russia lodged on 25 June 2011   The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONs 1.     Having regard to the fact that on 21 October 2014 the second applicant obtained title to the flat: (a)     What was the basis for the acquisition of the title? (b)     If the second applicant acquired the title as a result of privatisation on the basis of the social tenancy agreement of 18 August 2014, did the first applicant give her consent for the flat to be privatised only by the second applicant? (c)     Does the first applicant have the right to live in the flat? (d)     Do the judgments of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow of 21   September 2010 and the Moscow City Court of 28 March 2011 on the first applicant’s dispossession and the applicants’ eviction remain in force? (e)     If so, how is it compatible with the acquisition of the title to the flat by the second applicant?   2.     Having regard to the fact that on 21 October 2014 the second applicant obtained title to the flat, do the applicants retain victim status with respect to their complaints under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taking into account, in particular, that the flat was initially owned by the first applicant? (See Senator Lines GmbH v. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no.   56672/00, ECHR 2004 IV.)