d) No reasons for refusal of request to change location for oral proceedings 

In T 689/05 and T 933/10 the boards held that the examining division's rejection of the applicant's request that the oral proceedings be held in Munich instead of The Hague had to be reasoned, R. 111(2) EPC, R. 68(2) EPC 1973. In T 933/10 it was held that this violation justified the reimbursement of the appeal fee. However, in T 689/05 the board held that the established procedural violation did not affect the entire proceedings before the examining division. It would have been disproportionate to set aside the entire impugned decision because of the partial lack of reasoning of the decision under appeal. In T 1142/12 the board rejected the appellant's argument that under Art. 116 EPC the parties have not only a right to oral proceedings but also the right to have their case heard at the proper place (here, Munich instead of The Hague). Therefore, no substantial procedural violation occurred.