4.  The applicant is a Lithuania national who was born in 1941 and lives in Vilnius. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  The applicant’s parents owned two buildings with the adjacent plots of land in the centre of the city of Kaunas. The property was nationalised following the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in the 1940s. After Lithuania regained its independence in 1990, the applicant’s mother applied for the property to be returned to her in kind, pursuant to the 1991 legislation on restitution of property rights. 7.  On 14 March 1996 the Kaunas City Council adopted a decision to pay to the applicant’s mother monetary compensation for the family’s former building situated in Šv. Gertrūdos street 6 in the city of Kaunas. The local authorities also decided to return in kind those parts of the building that were not suitable for housing purposes, thereby excluding two flats located in the building. 8.  Following the death of the applicant’s mother, he applied to a court for the decision of 14 March 1996 to be quashed. 9.  On 5 February 1999 the Kaunas City District Court accepted the applicant’s action. The court ordered the local authorities to return in kind Flat No. 2 located in the building, and to offer equivalent compensation for Flat No. 1 - by way of another apartment - in accordance with the relevant legislation on the restitution of property rights. 10.  The Kaunas City Council did not appeal against the decision, which entered into force on 19 February 1999. 11.  On 20 March 2001 the Kaunas City Council held that the question of an equivalent flat - in compensation for Flat No. 1 - should be decided by the Vilnius City Council as the applicant was a Vilnius resident. By a letter from the Vilnius City Council of 29 March 2002, the applicant was informed that the local authorities could not take a decision in the absence of the relevant governmental provisions on equivalent flats. 12.  On 26 March 2001 the Kaunas City Council applied for the re-opening of the proceedings. By a final decision of the Supreme Court of 4 March 2002, it was established that there had been no valid basis for re-opening the case. 13.  On 27 November 2003 the Kaunas City Council adopted a decision to return in kind Flat No. 2. The applicant has not yet carried out the necessary formalities in order to register the flat in his name, as he is dissatisfied with the fact that two tenants continue living there and that he is allegedly unable to request their eviction. He has brought no court action in this respect. 14.  The applicant also submits that the local authorities have adopted no decision to return in kind another building, situated in Laisvės alėja 18 in the city of Kaunas, and the plot of land adjacent to that building. The Government do not deny the possibility of the applicant’s eventual entitlement, in the form of compensation, to the plot of land in Laisvės alėja 18. However, according to the Government, this question has not yet been resolved in view of the difficulties pertaining to the adoption of a detailed plan of the area by the local authorities, and given the ongoing legal disputes in this connection. 15.  On 2 November 2004 the applicant applied to the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court, claiming the unlawfulness of the decision to create a car park in Laisvės alėja 18 in Kaunas. At the same time, the applicant claimed that the local authorities had protracted the adoption of the necessary planning decisions in that area. 16.  On 8 April 2005 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s action insofar as it related to the creation of the car park. However, it obliged the local authorities to prepare a detailed plan of the area. In this respect, the court awarded the applicant 3000 LTL in non-pecuniary damage for the local authorities’ negligence, as a result of their failure to adopt the plan in a timely manner. 17.  On 28 June 2005 the applicant was informed by the Vilnius City Council that the relevant legal provisions on equivalent compensation had been adopted, and that the applicant had been included in the list of persons having priority for the restoration of their property rights. 18.  On 12 September 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of 8 April 2005. 19.  On 26 January 2006 the applicant submitted a fresh action, alleging the inactivity of the local authorities in their adoption of a detailed plan for the area and the restoration of his property rights in Laisvės alėja 18. The case is currently pending.