g) Obligation to give reasons as to why a representative cannot be substituted 

According to Art. 15(2)(c)(v) RPBA 2020 the appointment of a new professional representative, as a rule, does not justify a change of date. The obligation mentioned in the 2007 Notice to state in the request why another representative cannot stand in for the one prevented from attending has been dispensed with. For further decisions on this topic, see "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO", 9th ed. 2019, III.C.6.1.5.

The 2000 and 2007 notices (points 2.5 and 2.3 respectively) stated that any request to set another date for oral proceedings should indicate why another representative could not stand in for the one unable to attend. This meant that if and when the board was satisfied that the representative was prevented from attending, it must therefore be considered whether another representative, who did not have to be from the same firm, could substitute the prevented representative (T 699/06, T 861/12). If the appellant has signed a general authorisation to a law firm, the representative had to provide convincing reasons as to why no other representative of this firm could substitute the representative (T 518/10).