5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Săvârșin. 6.  She was adopted on 25 February 1972, at the age of seventeen. 7.  The applicant’s adoptive mother also had another adopted daughter, H.M. The applicant’s mother died in 1986. 8.  In 2003, the two sisters were jointly granted title to ten hectares of forest, based on their entitlement through adoption to inherit land which had been expropriated from their grandmother. 9.  Subsequently, the applicant brought an action for division of the land between the sisters. 10.  While the proceedings were ongoing, H.M. brought an action for annulment of the applicant’s adoption. She claimed that the main aim pursued by her adoptive mother when she had sought to adopt the applicant had been to ensure emotional and financial support for her in old age and help with everyday activities. H.M. averred that the only aim pursued by the applicant in agreeing to the adoption had been to obtain inheritance rights. 11.  The applicant submitted that the main reason why her sister had lodged the action for the annulment of her adoption had been to preclude her from inheriting half of the ten hectares of land and to keep all the property inherited from their adoptive mother for herself. In this respect she claimed that the lawfulness of the adoption order had never been questioned before, although it had been issued thirty-two years previously. She concluded that the misunderstandings which had arisen between her and her sister after the death of their adoptive mother could not justify the annulment of an adoption concluded in accordance with the law. 12.  In his final oral submissions before the first-instance court the applicant’s lawyer raised the objection of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff. He contended that H.M. had not proved a legitimate and current interest in seeking the annulment of her sister’s adoption. 13.  On 7 December 2004 the Suceava County Court dismissed the applicant’s objection and declared the applicant’s adoption void, finding that it had not had a purpose envisioned by the Family Code. It held that the only aim of the applicant’s adoption had been the fulfilment of the patrimonial interests of the adoptive mother and the adopted child, and that it had not been intended to ensure a better life for the applicant. 14.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, maintaining that she had lived with her adoptive mother since she was nine years old, although the adoption order had only been issued in 1972 when she was seventeen. She submitted that the family relationship established between her and her adoptive mother since she was nine had been proved by witness statements which were in the case file, and that it was also attested to in the report drafted by the authorities when they carried out a social investigation in connection with her adoption. 15.  The judgment of the court of first instance was upheld by a decision of the Suceava Court of Appeal rendered on 15 April 2005. A dissenting opinion to that decision stated that the adoption had not been improper, as its main aim had been the welfare of the applicant, who had been born into a family with eight children and a difficult financial situation.