CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DEDOV

It is hard to believe that the first flat did not satisfy the applicant ’ s needs for the purposes of execution of the 1995 judgment. However, that position was confirmed by further judgments in 2002 and 2007. All three judgments became final. As regards the authorities, they failed firstly to challenge the initial judgment with a view to restricting the extent of the entitlement of members of the applicant ’ s family to a flat together with the applicant, inter alia under Article 2 of the Russian Family Code; secondly to terminate execution of the judgment once the applicant had accepted the first flat; and thirdly to prevent the privatisation of the first flat in 2006. As a result, the applicant has received two flats. Such an anomalous situation occurred on account of deficiencies in the national procedure for the allocation of tenancies which should be corrected by the State, and not by the Court.