5.3.5 Sudden serious illness and severe psychological stress

In T 525/91 of 25 March 1992 date: 1992-03-25 the board found it credible that the sudden and unforeseen diagnosis of illness and the announcement of the urgent need for a major operation caused the appellant's representative not only great physical weakness but also severe psychological stress. In those circumstances, and in view of the short period between diagnosis and hospital admission (two working days) and the proven absence of the secretary on one of those working days, it had to be acknowledged that even on the days between diagnosis and admission the representative had been in an exceptional situation which impeded him from devoting the necessary attention to the imminent time limit and from taking the precautions needed to ensure that it was observed. In the circumstances the board deemed the conditions for re-establishment to have been met. See also T 558/02 of 9 August 2002 date: 2002-08-09.

In T 387/11 the representative put forward a credible case that he had failed to observe the time limit for filing the statement of grounds because of severe psychological stress caused by a sudden and unexpected bereavement (see also T 970/12).

In T 600/18 the board held that the stress of the situation, in which the representative was forced by the circumstances to act himself instead of his well trained and supervised staff, as a consequence of being under pressure to let his staff leave early due to extremely poor weather conditions, could not be equated with one where a patent attorney was incapable of taking sound decisions due to sudden serious illness or a sudden and unexpected bereavement, as in cases T 525/91 date: 1992-03-25 or T 387/11.

In J 17/16 the Legal Board was satisfied that the appellant's executive manager had been suffering from unusually severe psychological stress owing to the demands on her time and the emotional distress associated with caring for her seriously ill father-in-law and with her mother's death (more than six months before expiry of the time limit at issue) and so, despite having taken due care, had not been in a position to observe the time limit for claiming priority.

However, in this context, the case law also requires an effective system of staff substitution in case of absence (see in this chapter III.E.5.4.5 "All due care in making provisions for staff absences".