5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Vilnius. 6.  By an agreement of 18 July 2000 and an order of the Vilnius Region Administration of 21 June 2000 the applicant acquired from the State a plot of land measuring 0.2 ha for 59,776 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 17,312 euros (EUR)) and registered it in the land registry in her name. According to the documents issued by the authorities, the plot was designated for residential use (namų valda). The applicant had previously, in 1999, acquired from a private person the remains of a burned-down house (registered in the real estate registry) which stood on that land, with the intention of renovating it. 7.  In December 2002 after establishing that the sale was not in accordance with the law, a public prosecutor applied to the courts to have the sale contract and related legal acts of the authorities annulled in order to protect the public interest. 8.  On 23 September 2003 the Vilnius 1st City District Court dismissed the claim. That decision was upheld by the Vilnius Regional Court on 18 December 2003. The courts rejected the arguments of the prosecutor that the applicant had not been entitled to buy the plot for residential use and that residential use of the land was no longer possible; however, on 26 April 2004 the Supreme Court remitted the case for re-examination. 9.  On 10 February 2005 the Vilnius 1st City District Court dismissed the claim again. 10.  On 17 June 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court overturned that decision and granted the claim; the applicant and her lawyer participated in the hearing. It was established that in 1999 to 2000 the State’s plot had not been used as “residential land”, and its sale had breached Government Resolution no. 260 of 9 March 1999 and the Law on Territorial Planning. 11.  The transfer of title to the applicant was annulled and pursuant to Article 1.80 of the Civil Code the land was returned to the State while the applicant received back the money she had paid for it. 12.  On 13 February 2006, by way of written proceedings, the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded. 13.  According to the information submitted by the parties, in 2011 the disputed plot was assigned for restitution to a private individual, V.J. The applicant was still the owner of the remains of the house; however, its use or renovation was uncertain, given that she had no right to use the area of land on which the house stood.