a) G 1/21 – limited applicability beyond a general emergency 

(i) Oral proceedings held by videoconference without a party’s consent

In T 618/21 the board decided to hold the oral proceedings in March 2023 as a videoconference without the appellant's consent. In particular, the board mentioned the following points apparent from the wording of Art. 15a(1) RPBA 2020: (a) it was for the board to decide whether to conduct oral proceedings as a videoconference and it could even decide to do so against the parties' wishes; (b) the conferred discretion was to be exercised in the light of considerations as to what was appropriate; and in particular (c) there was nothing in the provision to suggest that it was applicable only when there was a general emergency.

The board further found that, both generally and in the specific case in hand, a videoconference was a nearly equivalent alternative to in-person proceedings. According to the board, Art. 15a RPBA 2020 had closed the gaps in the law that had existed at the time of the referral in G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 and had to be regarded as a follow-up provision to G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16. Art. 15a RPBA 2020 now governed non-emergency situations too, which the Enlarged Board had deliberately refrained from addressing in G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16. The conclusions drawn in G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 were anyway no longer fully applicable to the present, because the initial premise behind decision G 1/21 date: 2021-07-16 (namely the difference in quality between a videoconference and in-person proceedings) no longer held.