any steps for the period of one year since the first enquiry. Other enquiries by the AOB in April and October 2012 had the same result. Thus, the proceeding has been pending for three and a half years without the Asylum Court having undertaken even a single procedural step. This investigative proceeding represents many other cases. Inadequate assistance by the Asylum Court Unfortunately, the cooperation with the Asylum Court is flawed. The Asylum Court responds to enquiries by way of form letters without going into the individual case. Subsequently, enquiries in cases where the AOB had received a form response were again answered with just such a form letter. Proceedings, in which the Asylum Court had held out the prospect of a judicial proceeding or the conclusion of a proceeding – albeit within a longer time frame – are merely designated as “not yet concluded” in the case of an enquiry. The Asylum Court does not provide reasons why originally made promises are not kept. The AOB regrets this development deeply, as it presumes that the Asylum Court should also be interested in an improvement of the situation. System of judicial protection is not efficient The Austrian Constitutional Court presumes that the legal system must provide an efficient system of judicial protection (Collection of decisions of the Austrian Constitutional Court 14.702/1996). Institutions providing judicial protection are included in the fundamental principles of the Constitution. The Asylum Court is such an institution providing judicial protection that had been established under constitutional law. However, the Austrian Constitutional Court also requires a minimum of actual efficiency to benefit persons seeking legal recourse (Collection of decisions of the Austrian Constitutional Court 11.196/1986 and many more). This means that the Asylum Court must handle a petition within a reasonable period of time. Proceedings of such length do not meet these requirements. It is not merely a matter of a few proceedings, but a significant percentage of them. Systemic deficiencies? Therefore, systemic deficiencies must be presumed, for example, too few personnel or structural deficits in the distribution of cases. The Asylum Court has said that despite the increase in complaints, the number of pending proceedings has gone down. Nevertheless, from the AOB’s perspective, there is reason to fear that the backlog will be passed on to the Federal Administrative Court, which will have jurisdiction from 1 January 2014. Individual case: VA-BD-I/1004-C/1/2011, AsylGH-AsylGH 100.920/0775-Präs/2011; VA-BD-ASY/0437-C/1/2012, AsylGH-AsylGH 100.920/0706-Präs/2011 and many others 90