General conclusions Ombudswoman Gertrude Brinek In the past year, the trend toward increasing complaints relating to legal guardianship continued unabated. Cases where the administration of the judiciary deserves criticism are, however, rare. It continues to be the case that the demands made by the persons affected and their family members vis-à-vis legal guardians are often not within the scope or the desired scope of their statutory responsibilities. However, the AOB frequently deals with desperate complainants whose actions clearly reflect the helplessness and the feeling of a complete disenfranchisement of their rights, particularly regarding financial issues. The AOB has no competence whatsoever with regard to control or questioning of a verdict regarding the scope of the legal guardianship. This is why I can only point to possibilities how a new impetus can be given and/or application for a judicial review initiated. I welcome the fact that the draft of the “National Action Plan on Persons with Disabilities 2012 – 2020” pays greater attention to this growing problem in society. Legal guardianship: Increasing complaints Whenever I am invited to speak at conferences or workshops or events, I take advantage of every opportunity to explain – especially to older persons in the audience– the authority of close family members to act on behalf of relatives and about the possibility of a timely set up of a durable power of attorney and health care proxy. I would like to particularly thank the senior citizen representative associations for their support. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice and the Austrian Bar Association and the Chamber of Civil Law Notaries also provide excellent information on this topic. Nevertheless, I am convinced that all of us must undertake increased efforts to inform citizens about these possibilities of early self-determination. Possibilities of early self-determination are still being underused The most important contribution to increase confidence in the rule of law is to foster dialogue with the judiciary and to discuss observations both based on complaints and their review and on discussions with experts on jurisprudence and application of the law. This dialogue also includes attendance at conferences of various professions, e.g. public prosecutors or relevant scientific societies. 27