Fundamental Rights Section unexpected increase in work, etc.), overburdening of the authority may never justify an intrinsic excessive duration of proceedings. In view of these basic principles, the entitlement of this complaint is evident for the Ombudsman Board, because a time period of approx. 10 years having passed between the subsequent examination of an aircraft and the stipulation of the designated fee cannot be justified by anything. 2.3.3 Judicial enforcement of the rights of neighbours in the case of private nuisance caused by guests outside business premises Neighbours of catering operations are frequently exposed to nuisance caused, not by the establishment itself, but rather, the behaviour of the guests outside of the business premises. The trade law provisions offer no/only insufficient assistance in this respect. In contrast, the courts affirm liability under neighbouring rights by the innkeeper for the behaviour of guests. With the Trade Law Amendment Act 1988, Federal Law Gazette no. 399/1988, in the provision of Sect. 74 para. 3 Trade and Industry Code, the precondition for an approval obligation under business premises law through the behaviour of guests in business premises was revoked to the extent that this was restricted to private nuisance caused by persons in the business premises. With this, the legislator has significantly reduced the scope of responsibility of the trade authority, as well as the neighbourhood protection. The behaviour of guests outside of the business premises can now only give rise to the ordering of earlier closing hours under the limiting preconditions of Sect. 113 para. 5 Trade and Industry Code 1994. In concrete terms, the legislator has restricted this obligation (of the municipality in its own sphere of competence) to move closing hours forward to those cases in which 'the neighbourhood is repeatedly, unreasonably disturbed by nonpunishable behaviour of guests outside the premises of the hospitality facility, or if security police misgivings exist'. In the assessment of the circumstance of 'by non-punishable behaviour', the respective provision of the respective state police law for delineating punishable from non-punishable behaviour must particularly be considered, so that the moving forward of closing hours cannot be ordered, if the behaviour of guests outside of the business premises, e.g. can be sanctioned as undue noisiness, according to administrative penal law provisions. In practice, it is barely possible for the neighbour to prosecute those causing undue noise, as the 37