4.3. Withdrawal of request for oral proceedings
4.3.3 Appeal inadmissible
In the absence of anything that can be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal, the lack of any substantive response to a notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is considered as equivalent to an abandonment of a request for oral proceedings initially made in the notice of appeal (see inter alia T 1042/07, T 234/10, T 179/11, T 2162/14, T 95/17, T 1293/18, T 362/18, T 1321/18, T 278/21). Holding oral proceedings would have served no other purpose than confirming the (undisputed) preliminary finding that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed (T 2377/19).
In T 1573/20 the board considered that this situation was comparable to the "clearly inadmissible appeals" considered in decisions G 1/97 (OJ 2000, 322) and G 2/19 (OJ 2020, A87). These decisions were concerned with appeals by a non-party or based on non-existing remedies only. The board was convinced that the Enlarged Board did not consider these examples to be exhaustive. Rather, it acknowledged as a matter of principle that there are exceptions to the right to oral proceedings under Art. 116 EPC (see also T 2377/19).
- J 6/22
Catchword:
1. The requirement for immediate and complete substantiation of a request for re-establishment corresponds to the principle of "Eventualmaxime/Häufungsgrundsatz/le principe de la concentration des moyens", according to which the request must state all grounds for re-establishment and means of evidence without the possibility of submitting these at a later stage. 2. Dynamic interpretation of the EPC, as derived from Articles 31(1) and 31(3) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, must take account of developments in national and international procedural law, notably as regards the guarantees of fair trial before a tribunal of law (Article 6(1) ECHR). 3. There is no "absolute" right to oral proceedings upon a party's request, but it is subject to inherent restrictions by the EPC, and due to procedural principles generally recognised in the Contracting States of the EPO. 4. If oral proceedings do not serve any legitimate purpose, the requirement of legal certainty in due time prevents the Board from appointing them. 5. It is not the purpose of oral proceedings in the context of proceedings for re-establishment to give the appellant a further chance to substantiate their factual assertions or to provide evidence despite the absence of factual assertions in the request for re-establishment.
- 2023 compilation “Abstracts of decisions”