4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Vienna. 5.  The applicant's husband was a civil engineer, and affiliated compulsorily to the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants (Bundeskammer der Architekten und Ingenieurkonsulenten) and its pension fund (Versorgungsfonds). 6.  The applicant's husband, who had moved out of the marital home in 1985 and lived with another partner, died in 1992. 7.  The applicant applied orally for payment of a survivor's pension in 1992, and was informed that she did not have a claim to a pension since her husband had been living with another woman. Only the latter was entitled to claim a survivor's pension. 8.  At first, the applicant did not follow up on her application, but by application dated 22 March 2001 she requested pension payments. 9.  On 25 June 2001 the Committee of the Welfare Institutions (Kuratorium der Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen) declined payment of a survivor's pension since the applicant and her husband had ceased to live in a common household. Due to changes to the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions (Statut der Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen) and the wording of the statutes at the time of the applicant's husband's death, the partner had the same right to a survivor's pension as the widow. Since the applicant's husband had lived in a common household with another partner, the latter was entitled to a survivor's pension. 10.  The applicant appealed and the Board of Directors of the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants (Vorstand der Bundeskammer der Architekten und Ingenieurkonsulenten) decided on 11 October 2001 to uphold the decision of the Committee of the Welfare Institutions. 11.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) on 22 November 2001, which decided to examine the relevant provisions of the Chamber of Engineers Act (Ingenieurkammergesetz) and the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions. On 23 June 2003, it set aside several provisions of the Chamber of Engineers Act as unconstitutional. Furthermore it set aside the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions as unlawful and on the same day decided to refuse to deal with the applicant's complaint, as the matter was not excluded from the Administrative Court's jurisdiction. 12.  Upon the applicant's request of 18 August 2003 her case was transferred to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). In her request the applicant had mentioned her old age and the duration of the proceedings. In the proceedings before the Administrative Court, the Board of Directors of the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants submitted their observations on 5 November 2003, to which the applicant replied on 24 November 2003. 13.  The applicant applied again for a survivor's pension on 29 July 2004. The request was dismissed on 6 December 2004 by the Committee of the Welfare Institutions as the case was still pending before the Administrative Court. An appeal was rejected by the Board of Directors on 7 February 2005. The applicant complained to the Administrative Court on 21 March 2005. On an unknown date the Administrative Court decided to join both complaints. 14.  On 27 November 2007 the Administrative Court set aside the contested decision, since it was based on a statute the Constitutional Court had set aside as being unconstitutional. 15.  By a decision of 15 April 2008, which was served on the applicant's counsel on 18 April 2008, the Board of Directors of the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants awarded the applicant a survivor's pension from 1 March 2001 onwards. The pension was fixed at a gross amount of 1,077.03 euros (EUR) per month for 2001. The applicant was paid all pension arrears in June 2008. The amounts due for the years 2002 to 2008 were adjusted, apparently to reflect the increase in prices. In all, the applicant received a net amount of EUR 104,748.10.