4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Beloljin, Republic of Serbia. 5.  In 1997 the Maribor unit of the Surveying and Mapping Authority (hereinafter the “Maribor unit”) issued several decisions concerning the delimitation of real estate belonging to the applicant and to company D., and ordering changes in respect of the use of land. The applicant appealed against some of those decisions. 6.  On 28 September 2000 the Ministry for the Environment and Spatial Planning (hereinafter the “Ministry”) granted the applicant’s appeal in part and annulled a decision issued on 12 February 1997 while it dismissed the appeal concerning two decisions issued on 31 January 1997. 7.  On 23 November 2000 the applicant challenged the aforementioned decision of the Ministry in the part dismissing his appeal by instituting proceedings before the Administrative Court. 8.  On 6 November 2003 the Administrative Court granted the applicant’s appeal, annulled the challenged part of the decision of 28 September 2000 (see paragraph 6 above) and referred the case back to the Ministry who, in turn, referred it to the Maribor unit. The applicant appealed. 9.  On 24 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2006. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. 10.  On 19 December 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint. The decision was served on the applicant on 10 January 2008. 11.  On 10 July 2015, referring to section 25 of the 2006 Act, which regulates the domestic settlement proceedings in cases where an application to an international court had been lodged before the 2006 Act entered into force (see paragraph 14 below), the State Attorney’s Office sent the applicant a settlement offer. In the offer they emphasised that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court could not have given rise to a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement. In respect of redress they offered to provide the applicant with a written statement in which they would acknowledge that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated in the proceedings before the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court. The offer was served on the applicant on 24 July 2015. 12.  The applicant did not accept the offer.