5.  The first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are siblings who were born in 1949, 1944, 1947, 1952, 1955 and 1954 respectively and live in Vilnius. The seventh applicant is the first applicant’s daughter; she was born in 1968 and also lives in Vilnius. 6.  In 1991 the fifth applicant applied for restoration of his property rights to his late father’s land, which had been nationalised by the Soviet regime. In that application he indicated that the first, second, third, fourth and sixth applicants, as well as their mother, P.M., and brother, N.M., were also possible candidates to have their property rights to that land restored. 7.  On 8 March 2004 the Vilnius County Administration (hereinafter “the VCA”) restored the property rights of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants, as well as P.M. and N.M., by giving them all joint ownership of 5.80 hectares of agricultural land and 3.20 hectares of forest in Naujakiemis, an area in the Vilnius city municipality. As P.M. and N.M. had died by then, the applicants inherited their share of the land. 8.  On 31 March 2006 the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants signed two preliminary agreements (preliminariosios sutartys) with the seventh applicant by which they undertook to sell her the two plots and the seventh applicant paid them 1,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 290 euros (EUR)). However, final sale agreements were not concluded and the seventh applicant did not become the owner of the plots. 9.  On 29 August 2008 the prosecutor of the Vilnius Region (hereinafter “the prosecutor”) lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants’ property rights to the nine hectares given to them annulled. The prosecutor submitted that the two plots given to the applicants were covered by forest which, being situated within a city, was considered a forest of national importance and could therefore only be owned by the State (see the relevant domestic law cited in Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 70520/10 and 2 others, §§ 86-89, 12 June 2018). According to the information provided by the prosecutor, forests of national importance covered the entire plot of 3.20 hectares, as well as 1.37 hectares of the other plot (see paragraph 7 above). In view of the circumstances, the VCA’s decision had to be declared unlawful and its effects annulled. The prosecutor asked that after annulling the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants’ property rights to the two plots, their preliminary agreements with the seventh applicant (see paragraph 8 above) also be annulled. 10.  The applicants and the VCA disputed the prosecutor’s claim. However, on 1 September 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the claim. It underlined that transferring forests of national importance to private ownership was contrary to the law (ibid., §§ 89-91) and therefore the VCA’s decision had to be annulled. The court held that the applicants could not be considered as having acquired their property rights in good faith (sąžiningi įgijėjai) because the information about the presence of forests on their land had been available in a public register and any diligent person should have known that, under the Constitution, forests of national importance could only be owned by the State. 11.  The court annulled the restoration of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants’ property rights and ordered them to return the two plots to the State. It also annulled the preliminary agreements between them and the seventh applicant and ordered them to return to the seventh applicant the LTL 1,000 (approximately EUR 290) which she had paid them pursuant to those agreements (see paragraph 8 above). 12.  The applicants and the VCA lodged appeals against that decision. However, on 22 April 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and upheld the lower court’s decision in its entirety. The applicants then lodged an appeal on points of law, but on 23 July 2010 the Supreme Court refused to accept it for examination, holding that it raised no important legal issues. 13.  On 23 February 2012 the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants received a letter from the National Land Service (the institution which took over the relevant functions of the VCA after an administrative reform – hereinafter “the NLS”) confirming that, after the courts had annulled their property rights to nine hectares of land, they had retained the right to have those property rights restored. The applicants were informed of the forms of restitution provided for by the domestic law (ibid., § 92) and asked to inform the authorities of their preferred form of restitution. 14.  On 8 and 30 May 2012 the first applicant sent letters to the NLS on behalf of all the aforementioned applicants, asking that land in the original location which was not covered by forest be returned to them. 15.  On 26 July 2012 the NLS sent a letter to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants which stated that it might be possible to give them two plots in Naujakiemis, measuring 4.44 and 0.07 hectares, so if they wished to receive those plots, their requests would be considered when the land plan was being prepared. As for the restoration of property rights to the remaining land, the applicants were asked to consider alternative forms of restitution (ibid., § 92) and to inform the authorities of their choice. It is unclear whether the applicants replied to that letter. 16.  On 19 August 2012 the second applicant died (see paragraph 4 above). The third applicant was issued with a certificate of inheritance with respect to the second applicant’s estate on 12 December 2012. 17.  On 19 February 2015 the NLS approved a list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius, including Naujakiemis. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were included in that list as candidates to receive two plots measuring a total of 4.4115 hectares. 18.  On 6 May 2015 the NLS adopted decisions to restore the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants’ property rights by giving them two plots of agricultural land, measuring a total of 4.4115 hectares. The decisions stated that the rights to the remaining 4.5885 hectares would be restored at a later date. 19.  On 28 August 2017 the NLS adopted decisions to restore the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants’ property rights to the remaining 4.5885 hectares by means of monetary compensation of EUR 5,307, corresponding to the indexed value of the land (that is to say, the value established by relevant public authorities).