unification. The embassy recommended in early August 2010 that a DNA test be conducted to prove paternity. The Federal Asylum Office did not explain this possibility to Mr. N. until mid-May 2011 and gave him a deadline of 1 September 2011. The Austrian Embassy did not inform the Federal Asylum Office of the receipt of the sample kit nor of the additional procedure. Therefore, on 2 September 2011, the Federal Asylum Office made a negative predictive decision. On 2 February 2012, the family again applied for entry into Austria. At the end of May 2012, the DNA analysis expert opinion was received by the Federal Asylum Office and proved paternity. The Austrian Embassy in Addis Ababa was instructed in July 2012 to issue visas to the three children. No instruction provided about DNA analysis In another family proceeding, the AOB determined an intervention that violated Section 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the Federal Asylum Office did not provide information about the possibility of DNA analysis to prove the family status. It is true that the Somali man who was eligible for asylum was instructed accordingly within the scope of a family reunification in 2009, however, not during the new proceeding in 2011 that pertained to other children. Individual cases: VA-BD-I/0062-C/1/2012, BMI-LR2240/0702-III/5/2012; VA-BD-I/0099-C/1/2012, BMI-LR2240/0391-II/3/2012; VA-BD-I/0127-C/1/2012, BMI-LR2240/0437-II/3/2012; VA-BD-I/0274-C/1/2012, BMI-LR2240/0398-III/5/2012 Duration of the proceedings before the Asylum Court – efficient system of judicial protection? Since 2010, the complaints regarding the duration of the proceedings before the Asylum Court have significantly increased. In 2012, the number of complaints fell for the first time. It is clear from the concerns of the parties involved that they finally want to know where they stand. The system of judicial protection can only be efficient if the proceedings are concluded within a reasonable period of time. Almost all the complaints referred to the duration of the proceedings. In a few cases, asylum seekers requested an investigation of the decisions by the Asylum Court. As the AOB cannot investigate court decisions, these persons received explanations. 481 complaints referred 88