5.3.4 Monitoring or computer systems matters

In J 21/92 and J 24/92 the applicant and his representative (both Americans) had each changed their fee-monitoring system, independently of each other. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the representative was no longer responsible for paying the appellant's renewal fees.

In T 369/91 date: 1992-05-15 (OJ 1993, 561) the relevant circumstances involved moving from a manual to a computerised time-limit monitoring system. Here "due care" meant ensuring that during the changeover period the representatives handling the various kinds of cases were told which system – manual or computerised – had generated the reminder in question. Only then could they reliably know if and when a further reminder was likely.

In T 489/04 the board did not recognise the installation of a new computer system as an extraordinary circumstance. On the contrary, it considered the resulting burden on employees as foreseeable and containable, had appropriate measures been taken in good time. In J 14/16 the Legal Board was not convinced that a computer-system breakdown and the ensuing substantial data loss and organisational disruption, qualified as exceptional circumstances.

In J 6/18 a technical error occurred in server migration, which affected the US attorney's docketing database and email communication. This could be considered as an isolated mistake in a system which apparently had operated efficiently for several years. There was in the Legal Board's view no necessity for more redundancy in the attorney's system for monitoring time limits.