4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Floing, where she owns a house. Her neighbours (Mr and Mrs R.) own two plots of land opposite her house. 5.  It appears that on 2 February 1972 Mr and Mrs R. obtained a decision on designation of use of their land (Widmungsbewilligung) and on 10 March 1972 they obtained permission (Baubewilligung) to construct a guest-house. Mr and Mrs R. changed the construction plans and built a dance-hall and adjoining rooms in the basement of the house. On 29 April 1976 the Mayor (Bürgermeister) of Floing retroactively granted a building permit and authorised this use of the building (Benützungsbewilligung). The authorisation of use applied to the rooms in the basement of Mr and Mrs R.’s house, which were then used as a discotheque. According to the applicant, this led to noise emissions and heavier traffic on the road leading to the applicant’s and Mr and Mrs R.’s houses. 6.  The applicant was not considered to be a party to the proceedings in respect of the building permit and thus was not able to lodge her objections with the relevant authorities. 7.  In mid-1988 the Regional Government instructed the Mayor that the applicant (and some other neighbours) were parties to the proceedings and thus would have to be served the decision on the designation of use of land of 2 February 1972 and the building permit of 10 March 1972. The Mayor did not serve the decisions on the applicant; in mid-1989 he was instructed again to serve the decisions, which he refused. On 2 October 1989 the applicant applied to the Mayor to be served the decisions. On 13 November 1989 she received the decisions. 8.  The applicant appealed against the building permit and decision of authorisation of use of 29 April 1976. The Municipal Council partly set aside the decisions on 28 March 1991, holding that the building was in breach of the area zoning plan in force since 27 May 1986 and that the building was in contravention of the building permit and the designation decision. Thus, parts of the authorisation of the use of the building (in the present case the alterations to the rooms for their use as a discotheque) were set aside. 9.  Mr and Mrs R. raised objections (Vorstellung) to the setting aside of the decision, arguing, inter alia, that the Municipal Council should have obtained data on the noise emissions coming from the discotheque, and that the applicant should have been considered a party to the proceedings only if the noise emissions had exceeded a certain level. They also argued that they had entered into a settlement agreement with the applicant (see paragraph 13 below), according to which she would tolerate the discotheque against payment of a certain amount of money. Furthermore when the noise levels were measured the noise was found not to exceed the usual noise levels in the area. 10.  The objections were dismissed by the Styrian Regional Government by decision of 16 October 1991; Mr and Mrs R. complained to the Administrative Court. By decision of 12 March 1992 the Administrative Court granted suspensive effect to Mr and Mrs R’s complaint. 11.  On 24 September 1992 the Administrative Court confirmed the setting aside of the authorisation of use. It held that the authorisation of use was in fact an additional building permit and the neighbours (in this case the applicant) were parties to these proceedings. It also confirmed the Regional Government’s view that the area in which Mr and Mrs R. were running their discotheque was a residential area in which discotheques were prohibited. 12.  Meanwhile, on 27 August 1991 Mr and Mrs R. had applied for an alteration to their building and for a change of the authorised use of their building as a dance bar. The application was refused by the Mayor on 30 November 1993; an appeal to the Regional Government also failed on 21 December 1995. No further remedies were lodged, so this set of proceedings was terminated with final effect. 13.  On 2 July 1980 the applicant and Mr and Mrs R. had entered into a settlement agreement (gerichtlicher Vergleich) according to which Mr and Mrs R. undertook that at night no noise exceeding 35 decibels would reach a room in the upper floor of the applicant’s house, and undertook to pay compensation to the applicant. The applicant undertook to withdraw her appeal in the proceedings on the permission of commercial use of the site (Betriebsanlagengenehmigung) before the Weiz District Authority and to withdraw her appeal against the Mayor’s designation permit of 4 April 1979. Mr and Mrs R. undertook not to carry out the project to enlarge the discotheque rooms; the applicant undertook to agree to an amended project which was subject to the application of permission for commercial use of the site before the Weiz District Authority, in which a decision had been issued on 15 April 1980. 14.  On 8 March 1996 Mr and Mrs R. applied for a decision that the discotheque was built in accordance with the law. They relied on section 40 of the Styrian Buildings Act (Steiermärkisches Baugesetz), according to which a building can be declared to have been constructed lawfully if it was erected between 1 January 1969 and 31 December 1984 and if certain further conditions have been fulfilled. The application was rejected by the Mayor on 2 September 1996 and an appeal was rejected by the Municipal Council on 9 April 1997. Mr and Mrs R. submitted an objection to the Regional Government, which set aside the decision on 30 September 1997 and referred the case back to the Municipal Council. It held that the Municipal Council should have taken into consideration whether the building theoretically could have been authorised at the time of its construction. It appears that no further decision was taken by the Municipal Council. 15.  The applicant was not considered to be a party at first. When she found out that there had been proceedings, she applied on 22 and 23 March 2005 to have the decisions served on her. The rescinded decision of the Mayor of 2 September 1996 was served on her on 4 April 2005 and the Regional Government’s decision of 30 September 1997 was served on her 18 April 2005. 16.  The applicant made a complaint against the Regional Government’s decision of 30 September 1997 to the Constitutional Court on 27 May 2005, which refused to deal with the complaint on 10 October 2005. The case was transferred to the Administrative Court. 17.  On 27 June 2006 the Administrative Court rejected the complaint. It rejected the applicant’s arguments, but upheld the Regional Government’s reasoning that section 40 of the Styrian Buildings Act applied to buildings for which no building permission could be provided and to buildings for which permission had been refused; any other interpretation might put people who tried to obtain a building permit, even if in vain, at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those who had never even tried to obtain a building permit. The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 14 July 2006. As a result of the decision of the Administrative Court, the case was placed once more before the Municipal Council. 18.  In September 2007 an expert’s opinion was obtained on the question whether Mr and Mrs R.’s building could have been permissible under the area zoning plan in force at the time of the construction of the building. It was sent to the applicant’s counsel on 15 October 2007 for comments. 19.  On 25 January 2008 the Municipal Council rejected Mr and Mrs R.’s appeal against the Mayor’s decision of 2 September 1996 (the decision that the building would not be authorised under section 40 of the Styrian Buildings Act); Mr and Mrs R. appealed against the refusal. The appeal decision was not served on the applicant. On 8 April 2008 the Regional Government set aside the decision of 25 January 2008 and remitted the case to the Municipal Council. 20.  On 29 September 2008 the Municipal Council allowed Mr and Mrs R.’s appeal and thus their application of 8 March 1996 that the building be declared lawfully constructed, and a building permit and authorisation of use were granted. 21.  The applicant submitted an objection (Vorstellung) to the decision to allow the appeal. On 18 December 2008 the Regional Government sustained the objection and set aside the decision of 29 September 2008 since the authorities had failed to take noise emissions and other disturbances into consideration; however it also stated that from a zoning planning point of view the discotheque would be permissible. 22.  The applicant appealed against the Regional Government’s decision to the Constitutional Court on 2 February 2009. She contested the finding that the discotheque would be permissible from a zoning planning point of view. By decision of 2 March 2009 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case for lack of prospects, as the case neither appeared to contain questions of constitutional law nor was the contested decision based on a law appearing to be in violation of constitutional rights. 23.  The applicant did not apply to have the case transferred to the Administrative Court. 24.  By a decision of 9 July 2009 the Municipal Council again allowed Mr and Mrs R’s appeal and held that their building was lawful under section 40, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Styrian Buildings Act. On 11 February 2010 the Regional Government dismissed the applicant’s objection against this decision. On 14 June 2010 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant’s complaint and transferred the case to the Administrative Court. 25.  The Administrative Court requested the applicant to supplement her complaint, which she did on 24 August 2010. On 2 November 2010 the Regional Government submitted observations. On 9 November 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The decision was served on 18 November 2011.