5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Vilnius. 6.  On 30 October 1991 the applicant’s sister applied for the restoration of her property rights to her late father’s land, which was located in Pylimėliai village, city of Vilnius. She indicated that the applicant was also a successor to the same plot of land. 7.  It appears that the applicant’s father had owned some land in Pylimėliai village. According to the most recent information available to the Court, the exact plot of land he had owned was 6.0961 hectares. It appears that the applicant’s restitution process took two directions: at first she agreed to receive part of the land in the Vilnius region and then she asked to receive another 0.32 hectares in the Vilnius region, and she wanted to receive some land in the city of Vilnius (see paragraphs 8-22 below). 8.  On 26 May 2000 the applicant asked the authorities to restore her property rights to her father’s land by giving her plots of land of equivalent value in the Vilnius region. 9.  By a decision of 6 April 2001, the applicant’s property rights were restored in respect of 0.2420 hectares of her father’s land by attributing to the applicant a plot measuring 0.5124 hectares in the Vilnius region. 10.  On 19 May 2006 the authorities established that the applicant had a right to restore her title to 0.32 hectares of her father’s land. It appears that they did so following an application lodged by the applicant to have her right to a plot of land of 0.32 hectares transferred from Vilnius to the Vilnius region. 11.  On 17 November 2014 the applicant was informed that she could have her property rights restored to her father’s land by receiving a plot of forest in a rural area. She had to apply before 1 March 2015. On 27 February 2015 the applicant informed the authorities that she wanted her property rights restored by receiving a plot of forest in Didžioji Riešė. 12.  On 30 July 2015 the National Land Service (“the NLS”) decided to restore the applicant’s property rights to 0.0315 hectares of her father’s land by transferring her right to a plot of land of 0.1599 hectares. It was indicated in the decision that her rights to the remaining 0.2884 hectares would be restored later. 13.  On 30 August 2016 the NLS held a meeting to consider the location where the applicant had chosen two plots of land. 14.  On 26 February 2018 the NLS held a meeting to consider the location where the applicant had chosen four plots of land. It appears that no decision as to the restoration of the remaining land was adopted. 15.  It appears that at the date of the latest information available to the Court (17 September 2018), the applicant’s property rights to 0.2884 hectares of her father’s land had not yet been restored. 16.  On 27 December 2001 the applicant applied for the restoration of her property rights to her father’s land by returning to her 0.2 hectares of land in Vilnius, either in the former Pylimėliai village or in Antakalnis. It appears that this request was the change of her initial wish as regards the form of restitution (see paragraph 8 above). 17.  On 20 March 2003 the applicant asked the authorities to return to her in kind the remaining part of her father’s land in Pylimėliai, Vilnius. It appears that this request was another change of her wish as regards the form of restitution (see paragraph 16 above). 18.  On 27 June 2005 the Vilnius County Administration (“the VCA”) restored the applicant’s property rights to 0.0973 hectares of her father’s land by transferring to her a plot of land in Vilnius for the construction of an individual house. On 10 February 2006 the VCA restored the applicant’s property rights to 0.0544 hectares of her father’s land by transferring to her eleven plots of land in the former Pylimėliai village. 19.  On 2 May 2012 the applicant informed the authorities that she would not accept monetary compensation as a form of restitution and that she wanted to restore her property rights to her father’s land in natura. She also asked what actions she had to take in order to receive the land. 20.  On 23 April 2013 the NLS restored the applicant’s property rights to 0.0005 hectares of her father’s land. 21.  On 19 July 2016 the NLS restored the applicant’s property rights to 0.0042 hectares of land by returning to her in natura four plots of land measuring 0.0042 hectares in total. 22.  On 5 January 2018 the NLS restored the applicant’s rights to 0.0078 hectares of land by returning to her in natura two plots of land measuring 0.0078 hectares in total. It was indicated that the applicant’s property rights to the remaining 0.2898 hectares would be restored later. It appears that at the date of the latest information available to the Court (17 September 2018), the applicant had not yet received those 0.2898 hectares of land. 23.  On 4 November 2004 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court examined a claim lodged by the applicant that the VCA had been protracting the adoption of a decision on the restoration of her property rights in Vilnius. The court found that the authorities had asked the applicant to provide a document which she had in fact already provided and held that the authorities had failed to act in due time in the process of restoring her property rights. The court ordered the authorities to act in accordance with domestic law and to proceed with the restitution process. 24.  On 3 June 2005 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court examined another claim lodged by the applicant that the VCA had been protracting the adoption of a decision on the restoration of her property rights. She asked the court to oblige the VCA to return to her 0.7730 hectares of land. The court held that the authorities had been inactive and ordered them to issue a decision restoring the applicant’s property rights within three months of the date on which the aforementioned court decision had become final (see paragraph 36 below). 25.  The VCA appealed against that decision. On 11 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision. 26.  On 10 April 2009 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court examined a third complaint lodged by the applicant regarding the inactivity of the authorities in the process of restoration of her property rights. The applicant asked the court to oblige the VCA to restore her property rights to 0.3013 hectares of land in Vilnius and to 1.72 hectares in the Vilnius region, as well as to award her 10,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 2,896 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court held that the applicant had submitted several requests in 2006 asking the VCA to proceed with the restoration of her property rights; however, the latter had refused to act. Moreover, the authorities’ decision of 19 May 2006 (see paragraph 10 above) had remained unenforced. It was explained to the applicant that several measures had yet to be carried out in order to proceed. The court held that the applicant had to be included on the list of citizens wishing to receive land in Didžioji Riešė, but that due to the authorities’ inactivity, she had not been included on the list. The court also found that she still had a right to the restoration of her title to 0.6223 hectares of land and that the restitution process in her case had been going on for more than eighteen years. The court ordered the VCA to issue a decision restoring the applicant’s property rights to 0.6223 hectares of land within three months of the date on which the aforementioned court decision became final. As regards compensation, the court awarded the applicant EUR 579 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 27.  The authorities appealed. On 14 June 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the first-instance court had made some mistakes in calculating the time-limits for submission of a claim, and remitted the case for fresh examination. 28.  On 8 December 2011 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court carried out a fresh examination of the applicant’s complaint (see paragraph 26 above). The court stated that 5.44 ares of land had been returned to the applicant in natura in total and that the applicant’s property rights to 0.6223 hectares of her father’s land had not been restored. The court held that it could not order the VCA to transfer her rights to a plot of land measuring 0.3013 hectares in Vilnius because the largest plot that could be transferred in Vilnius was 0.12 hectares. Nor could it order the VCA to transfer 1.72 hectares of land in the Vilnius region because the plot of land the applicant had indicated belonged to someone else. The court awarded the applicant EUR 869 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 29.  The applicant and the NLS appealed. On 16 April 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeals. The court held that the decision regarding the applicant’s right to the restitution of 0.32 hectares of land had not yet been adopted and that the applicant had been offered the option of monetary compensation. 30.  In 2014 the applicant instituted court proceedings seeking compensation amounting to EUR 133,848 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 28,962 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. She claimed that the authorities had failed to issue decisions restoring her property rights in due time and that her property rights had not yet been restored. She also claimed that she had lost the right to the restoration of her title to 0.2 hectares of land in the city of Vilnius because ‒ after a change in the domestic regulations ‒ the maximum plot size that could be restored for the construction of an individual house was now fixed at 0.12 hectares (see paragraphs 28 above and 37 below). However, she had received a plot of land measuring 0.0973 hectares. 31.  On 26 May 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s compensation claim. It held that in 2000 she had applied to the authorities for the restitution of 2 hectares of her father’s land in the Vilnius region instead of the original plot her father had owned in Vilnius County (see paragraph 8 above). She had received 0.5124 hectares in 2001 (see paragraph 9 above). In 2001 she had applied for the restoration of her property rights to 0.2 hectares of land in Vilnius (see paragraph 16 above), and in 2003 she had asked for the remaining land to be returned in kind (see paragraph 17 above). In 2005 and 2006 the applicant’s property rights to 0.0973 and 0.0544 hectares of land had been restored (see paragraph 18 above). In 2012 the applicant had informed the authorities that she would not accept monetary compensation and still wanted to receive the remaining land in natura (see paragraph 19 above). In 2013 her property rights had been restored to 0.0005 hectares of land (see paragraph 20 above). The court also indicated that before 1 April 2003 the applicant had changed her mind as to the form of restitution and had claimed that she wanted to receive the land in natura. The court noted that the process of restoration of the applicant’s property rights had been carried out in several stages: in 2005 she had received a plot of 0.0937 hectares in Pašilaičiai, Vilnius (see paragraph 18 above); in 2006 a document confirming that she had a right to receive 0.32 hectares of State redeemable land had been drawn up; and in 2006 and 2013 her property rights had been restored to 0.0544 hectares and 0.0005 hectares respectively (see paragraphs 18 and 20 above). As regards the plot for the construction of an individual house, the court held that a decision to restore the applicant’s property rights to 0.0937 hectares of land had been issued in 2005 and had not been challenged. The court also ruled that the restitution process was not over and would be continued. In the court’s opinion, the authorities had not acted unlawfully and there were no grounds for awarding the applicant compensation. 32.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance decision and on 7 April 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court decided to reopen the case for examination on the merits in order to receive some additional documents. 33.  On 19 June 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first‑instance decision. It held that although the applicant claimed that the authorities had failed to execute the decisions of the courts to restore her property rights, she had never challenged the authorities’ decisions to restore her property rights to certain plots of land. The court also held that the restitution process had been carried out and suspended for objective reasons. The authorities had confirmed that the process would recommence as soon as the municipality had delineated the plots of land.