4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Orhei. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 16 January 1997 the Orhei mayor’s office attested the property right of a number of private individuals over plots of land in the town. Based on that decision, on 3 April 1997 the same office issued the applicant’s brother (C.) title to 0.0569 hectares of land. 7.  On 13 July 1998 C. died. After his death the applicant took possession of the land and used continuously for her own needs. 8.  On 10 September 1999 the territorial cadastre office registered the plot of land as belonging to C. 9.  On 31 January 2000 the Orhei mayor’s office amended the annex to its decision of 16 January 1997. C. continued to be mentioned as the owner of the relevant plot of land. 10.  On 15 July 2005 the Orhei mayor’s office lodged a civil court action aimed at annulling the property right of C. and the applicant to the relevant land. It claimed that the title had been issued in error since C. had moved to an apartment provided by the town and was no longer eligible to obtain such land. Following this relocation, the cadastre office was supposed to remove C.’s title from the list, which it had failed to do. In the meantime, on an unspecified date the applicant initiated a court action aimed at extending the time-limit for accepting her brother’s inheritance. The two court actions were joined by the court on 6 November 2006. 11.  On 15 February 2017 the Orhei district court rejected the court action lodged by the mayor’s office and accepted that of the applicant. It noted, inter alia, that the applicant had raised the issue of expiry of the three-year limitation period and added that under Article 78 of the old Civil Code (see paragraph 15 below), the court had to apply the rules concerning the limitation period regardless of the parties’ arguments. It found that the mayor’s office had missed the three-year limitation period. However, in the operative part the court omitted to refer to the expiry of the limitation period and found that the court action had been groundless. The court also accepted the applicant’s action, extending the time-limit for accepting her brother’s inheritance since she had taken possession of the relevant land immediately after his death. 12.  On 4 October 2007 the Chișinău Court of Appeal overturned that judgment, accepting the appeal lodged by the mayor’s office. It annulled C.’s title to the relevant land, finding that he had obtained it in error and that under the applicable law he could not be the owner of that land. Moreover, the court rejected the applicant’s claim for extending the time-limit for accepting her brother’s inheritance, finding that she had missed it without a valid reason. 13.  On 12 March 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal. 14.  The applicant submitted documents showing that she had paid various taxes for the land in question over the years. 15.  The relevant provisions of the Civil Code (1964, in force before 12 June 2003) reads as follows:
“Article 74.  General limitation periods.
The general limitation period for defending, by a court action, against the breach of a person’s rights (prescripția) is of three years ...”
“Article 78.  Mandatory application of the limitation period.
The competent court ... shall apply the limitation period regardless of the parties’ request.”
“Article 581.  Acceptance of inheritance.
In order to inherit, the heir must accept the inheritance. ...
It shall be considered that the heir has accepted the inheritance if he/she took actual possession or administration of inheritance assets ...” 16.  The relevant provisions of the Civil Code (in force from 12 June 2003) read as follows:
“Article 7.  Application of the civil law in time.
(1)  The civil law has no retroactive effect. It does not modify and does not annul the conditions of creation of a legal situation which previously appeared, nor the conditions of ending of a legal situation which previously ended.
...
(6)  The provisions of the new law concerning limitation periods ... shall apply to limitation periods which started before the date of entry into force of the new law, but did not end before that date. ... The start, the suspension and the interruption of the limitation period shall be determined under the old law for the period before the entry into force of the new law.
...”