4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kazan. 5.  In 1969 the Shumelka river in Tveretinovka, Republic of Tatarstan, was dammed and an artificial lake was created. 6.  The original owner of the plot of land that contained the lake was a State fur farm. 7.  In 2003 the fur farm sold the plot of land and the lake to a private limited liability company through a public sale by tender. The new owner’s title to the plot of land was registered in the State land register. 8.  On 5 May 2008 the company sold the land to the applicant through a public sale by tender. The applicant’s title to the plot of land was registered in the State land register and on 28 June 2008 the applicant was issued with the relevant certificate. 9.  On 18 October 2011, following bankruptcy proceedings, the limited liability company was de-registered as a legal entity. 10.  On 29 March 2012 the regional agency for management of State property brought a civil action against the applicant, seeking to reclaim the plot of land and the lake. 11.  On 5 May 2012 the Pestrechinskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan granted the claims in full. The Court noted that, pursuant to the applicable legislation, the lake could not be owned by a private entity or a person and should be returned to the State. The court further noted that the public sale by tender in 2008 had been conducted in contravention of certain regulations (in particular, the announcement concerning the sale had not been published in the newspapers indicated in the State-approved list) and refused to apply the three-year statute of limitations to the agency’s claims. 12.  On 5 July 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan quashed the judgment of 5 May 2012 on appeal and rejected the claims in full. The court considered that the District Court had erred in the interpretation of the applicable legislation and that the plot of land with the lake could be owned by a private party. It further noted that, in any event, the agency’s claim should be dismissed for its failure to bring its action within the three-year time-limit. In this connection the court referred to the fact that (1) the State had been aware that the contested property had left its possession back in 2003 when the plot of land had been sold by the State farm to a private company and the new owner’s title to the property had been registered in the State land register and (2) the State had been aware that the applicant had owned the plot of land since 2008 when the applicant’s title to the property had been registered in the State land register. The agency appealed. 13.  On 14 September 2012 the Supreme Court referred the matter for a review of points of law. 14.  On 10 October 2012 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgement of 5 July 2012 and upheld the judgment of 5 May 2008, by way of a points-of-law review. It rejected the applicant’s request to apply the statute of limitations, considering that the agency had learnt about the infringement of the State’s rights in respect of the plot of land only in 2012 after receiving a letter from the Federal Water Resources Agency (Федеральное агентство водных ресурсов России). 15.  On 22 February 2013 the plot of land was registered as federal property in the State land register. 16.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the imposition of a fine on her in 2011 as the owner of the plot of land. She claimed that she had not been the owner of the plot of land. 17.  On 19 April 2013 the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan dismissed the applicant’s claims. It noted that the applicant had been the owner of the plot of land in 2011 and that the parties had not furnished any evidence to the contrary.