6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Münster, Germany. 7.  The applicant’s father owned a plot of land with two houses on it in the centre of the city of Kaunas, Lithuania. The plot was nationalised following the Soviet occupation in the 1940s. Ownership of the houses was attributed to the former wife of the applicant’s father in 1948 and she continued living there. At some time between 1964 and 1968 the title to the buildings was transferred to third persons. 8.  After Lithuania regained its independence in 1990, the applicant applied for the property to be returned to him in natura, pursuant to the 1991 legislation on restitution of property rights. He submitted a complete request to the authorities in 1997 and again in 1999. 9.  In his first court action, the applicant sought to oblige the authorities to restore his property rights to the two buildings. 10.  On 16 October 2000 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed his claim on the ground that the houses had never been nationalised and had remained private property; as confirmed by a decision of the court of 1948, they had been owned by his father’s former spouse. Accordingly, the applicant had no entitlement to them under the domestic legislation on restitution of nationalised property. 11.  On 13 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. 12.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court that the local authorities had remained inactive in the restoration of his property rights to the plot of land. He also requested that his father’s original plot be returned to him. 13.  On 27 November 2001 the court allowed the applicant’s complaint in part. It was established that the documents which the applicant had submitted to the local authorities were sufficient for them to adopt a decision on the restoration of his property rights. However, the court held that in 1999-2001 almost the entire disputed plot had already been acquired and was being used by other persons, so it was not possible to return the original plot to the applicant; his property rights would have to be restored by other means provided for under the Restitution of Property Act. 14.  By the same judgment the court noted the inactivity of the administrative authorities. It ordered the Kaunas County Governor to restore the applicant’s property rights in respect of the land which had belonged to his father, in accordance with the provisions of the Restitution of Property Act. No deadline or form of restitution was specified in the court decision. The parties did not appeal and the decision became final. 15.  Following a complaint by the applicant that the authorities had failed to execute the judgment of 27 November 2001, a writ of execution was issued on 27 March 2002. 16.  On 19 April 2002 the Kaunas County Governor rejected the applicant’s request for restitution in natura. The applicant appealed and the refusal was quashed by a final judgment of the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court on 12 February 2004 on the ground of a procedural flaw: the said decision had not been signed by a competent person. 17.  Between 2003 and 2006 the administrative authorities made inquiries about the availability of parcels of land within the original plot owned by the applicant’s father. However, on several occasions it was concluded that no land was available and that the applicant’s rights would therefore have to be restored by other means provided for under the Restitution of Property Act. 18.  In 2006 the authorities informed the applicant that, for the purposes of restitution, a new plot of land would be assigned to him. However, in February 2007 they notified him that he would be compensated in the form of bonds. The applicant replied in writing that he would not accept either of those options. 19.  In 13 July 2007 the Kaunas County Governor adopted a decision restoring the applicant’s property rights in respect of the disputed land by awarding him compensation of 23,086 litai (LTL) (approximately 6,690 euros (EUR)) in Lithuanian Government bonds. 20.  The applicant applied to the courts again, asking them to quash the said decision as unlawful and to award compensation amounting to the full market value of the land, as submitted by him. 21.  By a final decision of 30 March 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and quashed the decision of 13 July 2007. It was established that the authorities’ decision to restore the applicant’s property rights was defective since it had been delivered by the Kaunas County Deputy Governor, who was not competent to adopt such a legal decision. 22.  The waiting list approved on 14 September 2011 by the National Land Service indicated the applicant among those eligible for a new plot of land as compensation for the purposes of restoration of their property rights where the property could not be returned in natura. He has been on that list since 2000. 23.  To date, no information has been submitted by the parties indicating that the applicant’s property rights have been restored. 24.  Considering that ownership of the buildings by his father’s former spouse and, subsequently, by third persons, was unlawful, the applicant brought a rei vindicatio action. He requested the return of his houses in natura and the annulment of the land sale agreements concluded by the administrative authorities and the private buyers. 25.  On 3 July 2003 the Kaunas Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. Its decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 30 October 2003. The court took the view that the houses were legitimately owned by the buyers. 26.  On 8 January 2004 the Supreme Court refused to entertain a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant on the grounds that it raised no important legal issues and therefore did not meet the requirements of Articles 346 and 347 § 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant and his attorney inquired about the reasons and re-submitted the appeal on 9 June 2004. 27.  On 11 June 2004 the Supreme Court refused to accept the latter appeal for examination, observing that it had been submitted after the expiry of the three-month time-limit on 30 January 2004 and no justification had been given for the delay.