4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Juodšiliai in the Vilnius Region. 5.  In 1991 the applicant’s mother applied for restoration of her property rights to land which had been nationalised by the Soviet regime. 6.  On 27 September 2001 the Vilnius County Administration (hereinafter “the VCA”) restored the applicant’s mother’s property rights by giving her a plot of six hectares in Pagiriai, an area in the Vilnius city municipality. As the applicant’s mother had died in 1995, the applicant was issued with a certificate of inheritance in respect of the plot on 13 March 2003. 7.  On 4 December 2008 the prosecutor of the Vilnius Region (hereinafter “the prosecutor”) lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have the applicant’s mother’s property rights to the six hectares given to her annulled. The prosecutor submitted that, according to the data provided by the State Forest Management Service, 5.59 hectares of the plot was covered by forest. Since that forest was situated in a city, it 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). 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 applicant’s mother’s property rights to the plot, the applicant’s property rights to it also be annulled. 8.  The applicant and the VCA disputed the prosecutor’s claim. However, on 15 September 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim and annulled the VCA’s decision to restore the applicant’s mother’s property rights to six hectares of land, as well as the applicant’s property rights to that land. 9.  The applicant and the VCA lodged appeals against that decision, arguing that the restoration of the applicant’s mother’s property rights had complied with the relevant legislation. The applicant also submitted that he was being deprived of his property without any compensation. However, on 1 June 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and upheld the lower court’s decision in its entirety. 10.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that the lower courts had incorrectly found that the forest on his land constituted an urban forest, but on 25 January 2011 it was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 11.  On 23 February 2012 the applicant 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 his mother had retained the right to have her property rights to six hectares of land restored. It stated that there was no more vacant land in Pagiriai and asked the applicant to inform the authorities of his choice as to one of the forms of restitution provided for by the domestic law (ibid., § 92). It is unclear whether he replied to this letter. 12.  On 24 July 2012 the applicant received another letter from the NLS which stated that there was a possibility for the applicant to receive a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in the Vilnius city area but as there were 4,806 other candidates waiting to receive plots in the area, the restitution process would take a long time. The applicant was asked to consider an alternative form of restitution, such as a plot of land in a rural area, a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a different city, or monetary compensation (ibid., § 92). He was also informed that there might be some vacant land in Pagiriai, so if he wished to receive a plot in that area, his request would be considered when the land plan was being prepared. 13.  On 21 August 2012 the applicant sent a letter to the NLS. He submitted that the annulment of his property rights to six hectares of land had caused him pecuniary damage in the amount of 251,217 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 72,760 euros (EUR)), according to an assessment of the value of the land carried out in May 2012. In the applicant’s view, being put on the list with 4,806 other candidates and being made to wait for an undetermined period of time for restitution was unacceptable. He asked to be allocated a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in Vilnius in the order of priority, and if that was not possible, to be informed how many plots were available in Vilnius and when he might expect to receive one. If he could not be given such a plot, he wished to receive compensation of LTL 251,217. The applicant also stated that he would only be able to decide whether he wished to receive a plot in Pagiriai after being presented with a plan of a specific plot. He stated that he did not wish to choose any other form of restitution. 14.  On 7 October 2013 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius, including Pagiriai. The applicant’s mother was included in that list as a candidate to receive six hectares of land. On 22 October 2013 the NLS held a meeting in which candidates were offered plots in the relevant areas and the applicant took part in that meeting. According to the minutes of the meeting, which were approved by the NLS, he stated that the question of the restoration of his property rights was pending before the European Court of Human Rights, that he was dissatisfied with the available vacant land and that he refused to choose any plots (žemės sklypų nesirinko). 15.  On 22 April 2016 the NLS held another meeting in which the applicant took part. According to the minutes of the meeting, which were approved by the NLS and signed by the applicant, he asked to be shown the plots which had been offered to him at their location and not just on a plan. He stated that he had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights and wished to receive its decision  only then would he “decide what to do with his land”. The applicant examined the land plan but did not make any decisions with regard to the available plots (jokių sprendimų nepriėmė), stating that he would “seek solutions from organisations of a higher instance”. 16.  At a subsequent meeting held on 17 May 2016, the applicant stated that he had seen the plots offered to him but that they could not be used according to their purpose because of their uneven surface and the presence of electricity and other installations on them. He therefore “saw no possibility of choosing any plots” (žemės sklypų pasirinkimo galimybių nemato). The applicant further stated that the plot which had been taken away from him had been large and of good quality, and that he preferred to “wait for decisions of a higher instance”. 17.  On 9 October 2017 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius, including Pagiriai. The applicant’s mother was included in that list as a candidate to receive six hectares of land. On 25 October 2017 the NLS held a meeting for candidates in which the applicant took part. According to the minutes of the meeting, which were approved by the NLS and signed by the applicant, he was dissatisfied with the size and location of the plots which had been offered to him. He again stated that he had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights and wished to receive that Court’s decision  only then would he decide “what to do with the land which had not been returned to him”. He refused to make any decisions during the meeting (susirinkimo metu jokių sprendimų nepriėmė) on the grounds that he was “waiting for a response from a competent institution”. 18.  On 24 November 2017 the NLS held yet another meeting of candidates to receive plots of land in the aforementioned areas and the applicant took part in that meeting. According to the minutes of the meeting, approved by the NLS and signed by the applicant, he again refused to make any decisions (susirinkimo metu jokių sprendimų nepriėmė) and repeated that he was waiting for a response from the European Court of Human Rights. 19.  At the date of the latest information provided to the Court (13 February 2018), the applicant’s property rights to six hectares of land had still not been restored.