Fundamental Rights Section On April 7, 2005, the file arrived at the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court, on April 15, 2005, one of the plaintiffs was ordered to pay a deposit against costs and to correct the appeal against the costs order; simultaneously, the appeal decision was delivered to the parties. After the resubmission of the corrected appeal against the costs order on May 13, 2005 and the application of one of the plaintiffs for approval of court assistance dated May 17, 2005, there was a situation of deadlock for another nine months. Only on February 13, 2006, a trial was announced for March 3, 2006, in which the proceedings were closed. The judgement of the Wiener Neustadt District Court was signed and prepared on March 10, 2006. The long time span between the return of the file from the court of review and the announcement of a hearing for oral proceedings on February 13, 2006 is also no longer comprehensible. In this case, the 'reopening' of the proceedings failed to be listed in the register, after reaching the legal review decision that rescinded the judgement, which is why it continued to appear in the audit lists as completed. In the case at hand, the supervisory authority measures were implemented in such a manner that the employees of the Wiener Neustadt District Court departments were informed about the necessity of carefully keeping the register and the responsible judge was encouraged to always implement proceedings within an adequate period of time and in a targeted manner. Furthermore, regular visits to the office of this judge were announced by the Superintendant of the Wiener Neustadt District Court. The Ombudsman Board was also assured that the President of the Vienna Neustadt Regional Court would include the court department of the responsible judge under his special supervision and continue to report on the status of the court department, so that he could decide on any other necessary measures under public service law. Notwithstanding these measures that have now been undertaken, in the case under review, the Ombudsman Board determined a grievance with the judicial administration due to the accumulated breach of the duty of care that came to light because of unjustified delays in proceedings with the Vienna Neustadt District Court. 41