4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Vienna. 5.  The applicant was a public official working for the Vienna municipality (Magistrat der Stadt Wien). On 2 February 1996 the personnel office (Personalamt) of the Vienna municipality accepted the applicant’s resignation (Entsagung), and held that she was entitled to severance pay (Abfindung) amounting to three monthly salaries. On 18 March 1996 the same authority amended the aforementioned decision, stating that the applicant was not eligible for severance pay. 6.  The applicant appealed on 1 April 1996. On 3 September 1996 the Appeal Panel of the Vienna municipality (Berufungssenat der Stadt Wien) dismissed her appeal as unfounded. 7.  On 9 October 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint against the appeal decision with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). On 17 October 2001 the Administrative Court set aside the appeal decision of 3 September 1996 due to lack of jurisdiction of the personnel office of the Vienna municipality. 8.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag), since the Appeal Panel had not rendered a fresh decision by then. However, on 7 August 2002, the Appeal Panel set aside the decision of 18 March 1996 and at the same time decided on the merits of the subject matter and stated that the applicant was not eligible for severance pay. 9.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 30 November 2004 the Constitutional Court set aside the Appeal Panel’s decision on the merits due to lack of jurisdiction of the panel with regard to the subject matter. 10.  On 1 April 2005 the Vienna Municipal Council (Gemeinderat der Stadt Wien) rendered a decision declaring that the applicant was not eligible for severance pay. 11.  The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court on 17 May 2005. On 12 October 2005 the Constitutional Court declared that the applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to have proceedings determining her civil rights conducted within a reasonable time had been violated. However, it dismissed her request to set aside the decision of the Municipal Council and refused to deal with the remainder of the complaint. The Constitutional Court conceded that the proceedings had already had an overall duration of approximately nine years, which resulted entirely from the conduct of the authorities and courts involved. Furthermore, the subject matter of the proceedings was not particularly complex. However, setting aside the decision (preliminarily) concluding those overly long proceedings would not be capable of remedying the violation of the applicant’s rights; on the contrary, it would again delay the termination of the proceedings. 12.  On 16 December 2005 the applicant amended her complaint for the proceedings before the Administrative Court. On 13 March 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. That judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 April 2009.