Investigating human rights cases, there are multiple factors that prolong the duration of the procedure. Communication with foreign authorities is often very difficult, and, at times, parents are overwhelmed – or unsure of which documents to submit. The provisions of EU law are to ensure that affected families do not remain without family benefits for more than two months even if the evaluation proceedings in cross-border cases are lengthy: the country in which the parent caring for the child lives must provide temporary family benefits until responsibility is finally clarified (Article 6 (2) of EU Regulation 987/2009). The existing structural problems in Austrian administrative practice could not be definitively resolved despite the AOB’s efforts in contacting the competent Federal Ministry multiple times and obtaining a statement from the European Commission in 2011. Therefore, in the current reporting year the AOB again approached the Commission (Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Integration). AOB again appeals to European Commission In its statement to the AOB, the European Commission adhered to one general principle: the term “difference of views” among potential competent institutions (Article 6 (2) of EU Regulation 987/2009), which is the prerequisite for applying the temporary obligation of the country of residence to provide benefits, is to be interpreted broadly. It encompasses everything that does not constitute express consent. Thus, the temporary obligation of the country of residence to provide benefits two months after an application was filed, also applies if the other institution to which the application was forwarded by the Austrian authority does not reply or does so belatedly or if the facts are unclear, e.g. if there is a pending paternity proceeding. Austria, as the country of residence – even if it allegedly has secondary responsibility – has a temporary obligation to provide benefits two months after submission of an application if the country with alleged primary responsibility has not provided family benefits by then. European Commission affirms Austria‘s t emporary obligation to provide benefits The following additional determinations are related to the principle of coordination of family benefits within the EU: (1) No further application is necessary in the foreign country It is contrary to EU law to require a parent or parents living in Austria, who have filed an application in Austria, to additionally file an application in a foreign country and await a decision on this application before temporary family benefits are paid. No need to file further application in foreign country It is also contrary to EU law to require the second parent to file an application in a foreign country or an appeal against the foreign decision and not grant family benefits until a decision is made. By contrast, in the opinion of the Federal Ministry of Families and Youth, the EU coordination rules make the filing of an application in the foreign country unavoidable. According to that opinion, applicants must fill out the national Differing administrative practices 49