Expectations for the AOB were initially low It is remarkable that the concluding provisions of this federal law contained a provision according to which it became effective as at 1 July 1977 and expired as at 30 June 1983. In other words, this was only a temporary solution. It was unclear both whether the institution could actually fulfil the requirements and what level of importance was attached to it. It was assumed that the AOB would receive not more than 1,500 complaints annually and that a maximum of 5% of them would be considered cases of maladministration. Despite these reservations, the AOB finally convinced the public, whose attitude had been initially critical, and quickly won trust and acclaim. Even before its expiration, namely as at 1 August 1981, the AOB became permanently integrated into the existing constitutional system and the remaining provisions not requiring a change in the Constitution were proclaimed anew as the Ombudsman Board Act (Volksanwaltschaftsgesetz ) 1982. Create trust and confidence This development has a firm basis and – as one can see from the significant expansion of responsibilities as at 1 July 2012 – it is still ongoing. Regarding the ex-post control of the public administration the expectations were clearly exceeded: Compared to the estimates made in 1977, complaints have increased more than ten-fold (2011: 16,239). On average, the affected parties are informed within 49 days whether the AOB has determined a case of maladministration. As we have learned from reactions to our work, sometimes the announcement that the party has contacted or intends to contact the AOB solves a problem that had previously seemed unsolvable. Representatives of public authorities know that in any case, they must render account of the matter to the AOB. The figures regarding the AOB’s investigative activities presented later in this report back up these statements with numbers. As the ex-post control body for the public administration, the AOB has a function under the rule of law. As an auxiliary institution of Parliament, it is, however, also particularly bound to democratic principles. The intensive, free of charge and largely informal contact with people serves both of the AOB’s functions and is at the centre of its day-to-day work. 10