j) Amendment not detrimental to procedural economy and no other party affected 

In T 1294/16 the board observed that neither Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 nor the explanatory remarks in CA/3/19 explained how to determine in general whether the circumstances of a case were "exceptional". However, the example of exceptional circumstances provided in the explanatory remarks (namely a new objection raised by the board) suggested that exceptionality was not necessarily linked to events being exceptional in the sense of deviating from the expected, but could also be caused by considerations related to the legal framework, notably the principles underlying the Rules of Procedure. Art. 12 and 13 RPBA 2020 implemented the "convergent approach", the major motivation for which was the procedural economy of the appeal proceedings. The board deduced from this that if admittance of a (late-filed) submission was not detrimental to procedural economy, it was appropriate to accept that there were "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020, provided that this did not adversely affect the other party. Moreover, the board noted that there were circumstances which were beyond the submitting party's control, e.g. the board's judgement as to whether it could deal with the proposed submission without undue delay. If the board, of its own motion, found the circumstances exceptional in view of the purpose of the convergent approach, then cogent legal reasons did not need to be brought forward by the party. In the case in hand, the board admitted the three late-filed auxiliary requests because they were filed in ex parte proceedings and the board was able to deal with the amendment without undue delay during the oral proceedings.