5.  The applicant company is a bank incorporated under the laws of Germany and is located in Stuttgart. 6.  In 1994 the applicant company had acquired real estate consisting of land, parts of which are designated as agricultural land, and a house in Tyrol. The land was subsequently sold to the company “de Vos Hotelbetriebs GmbH” (hereinafter “de Vos”), a limited liability company incorporated under Austrian law that was active in the hotel business. The contract was signed by the parties on 4 and 20 September 1996 respectively. 7.  On 23 September 1996 de Vos notified the transaction to the Real Property Transactions Authority (Grundverkehrsbehörde). Under the Tyrolean Real Property Transaction Act (Grundverkehrsgesetz), transactions concerning certain categories of real estate are subject to approval by the said authority. 8.  On 6 May 1997 de Vos filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) to the Tyrolean Real Property Transactions Commission (Landes-Grundverkehrskommission) as the Real Property Transactions Authority had failed to decide on the case within thesix-month period provided for by law. 9.  In its decision of 16 October 1997, the Real Property Transactions Commission refused to authorise the transaction. This and subsequent decisions of the Real Property Transactions Commission were served on both de Vos and the applicant company. 10.  On 9 February 1998 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court. 11.  On 26 February 2001 the Constitutional Court set aside the Real Property Transactions Commission's decision of 16 October 1997 and referred the case back to it. 12.  On 29 November 2001 de Vos filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Tyrol Regional Government, which the latter rejected on 31 January 2002 for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there was no higher authority to which jurisdiction could be transferred after the Real Property Transactions Commission. 13.  On 20 February 2002 the Real Property Transactions Commission refused authorisation of the transaction as regards certain parts of the real estate; it granted the transaction as regards other parts of the property. 14.  On 25 April 2002 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court about the refusal to authorise the transaction with regard to parts of the real estate. 15.  On 1 March 2005 the Constitutional Court set aside the decision refusing authorisation. 16.  In January 2008 the parties were asked whether there had been any essential changes regarding the facts. In the end of May 2008 the applicants were asked to submit their comments on the question whether the land in issue was being used for agricultural purposes. On 9 July 2008 the Real Property Transactions Commission again refused to authorise the transaction regarding parts of the real estate. 17.  On 26 August 2008 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court; the case is still pending before that court.