5. Nichterscheinen in mündlicher Verhandlung
Overview
5. Nichterscheinen in mündlicher Verhandlung
Das Nichterscheinen eines Verfahrensbeteiligten zur mündlichen Verhandlung ist im Allgemeinen in R. 115 (2) EPÜ und für die Beschwerdekammern in Art. 15 (3) und (6) VOBK 2020 geregelt. Bezüglich des Nichterscheinens in mündlichen Verhandlungen vor der Prüfungsabteilung, s. auch die Mitteilung des EPA, ABl. 2020, A124.
Nach Art. 15 (3) VOBK 2020 ist die Kammer nicht verpflichtet, einen Verfahrensschritt einschließlich ihrer Entscheidung aufzuschieben, nur weil ein ordnungsgemäß geladener Beteiligter in der mündlichen Verhandlung nicht anwesend ist, der dann so behandelt werden kann, als stütze er sich lediglich auf sein schriftliches Vorbringen (s. auch Art. 15 (3) VOBK 2007 mit im Wesentlichen demselben Wortlaut wie Art. 15 (3) VOBK 2020). Auf diese Weise, kann die Kammer auch gemäß Art. 15 (6) VOBK 2020 sicherstellen, dass die Sache am Ende der mündlichen Verhandlung entscheidungsreif ist, sofern nicht besondere Umstände dagegen sprechen.
- T 124/22
Zusammenfassung
In T 124/22 the parties had been summoned to oral proceedings before the board and a communication had been issued under Art. 15(1) RPBA. By letter of reply, received one day before the scheduled oral proceedings, the respondent had stated that it would not be attending the arranged oral proceedings. No substantive submissions had been made. Subsequently, the oral proceedings had been cancelled.
The board noted that the respondent's representative had provided his videoconferencing details eight days before the scheduled oral proceedings, indicating an intention to participate. However, he had notified the board of his non-participation only one day before the scheduled proceedings. Typically, such notifications were given well in advance (see also T 930/92). According to the board, given that the board's preliminary opinion had been issued ten months ahead of the scheduled hearing, the respondent had had ample time to inform the board of its non-attendance well ahead of the hearing.
In the board's opinion, while it was not uncommon for representatives to receive late instructions, they should seek timely directions from their clients, particularly when arranged oral proceedings approach. In this instance, the representative had failed to communicate promptly with the board's registry. The board pointed out that it (and presumably the opposing party's representative) had already invested some time in preparing for the oral proceedings. It recalled that according to Art. 6 of the epi Code of Conduct, members are required to act courteously in their dealings with the EPO. The same principle applied to behaviour towards other representatives (Art. 5(a) of the epi Code of Conduct).
The board also took the view that the respondent had effectively withdrawn its request for oral proceedings by declaring its intent not to attend them. In turn, the board did not consider the conduct of oral proceedings to be expedient (Art. 116(1) EPC). As a consequence, the decision was handed down in written proceedings (Art. 12(8) RPBA).