Do these sentences about a thing in general carry the same meaning?

[ppbird]

In general, when we talk about a thing in general, we use the present simple. Today I have found a sentence from a statute which subordinate clause is in the past tense.

"No action is brought by a person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to the person."

If the subordinate clause is in the present simple:-
"No action is brought by a person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrues to the person."

does this sentence have the same meaning as the original sentence? If not, why?

Thank for your help in advance

[konungursvia]

They have the same meaning. In the first, the past tense is used to accord with the notion of falling after the fact (twelve years from). In the second, that accord is not sought and the writer is using the general present as you say. I have always found Hong Kong's legalese particularly unclear. So many uses of should and is, where we would use can, may or their negations.

[ppbird]

Hello konungursvia, thanks for your explanation and suggestion. They are clear and useful

Thank again