5. Non-comparution à une procédure orale
Overview
5. Non-comparution à une procédure orale
L'absence d'une partie à la procédure orale est régie par la règle 115(2) CBE en général, et plus spécifiquement par l'art. 15(3) et (6) RPCR 2020 pour les chambres de recours. S'agissant de la non-comparution lors d'une procédure orale devant la division d'examen, voir aussi le communiqué de l'OEB, JO 2020, A124.
Conformément à l'art. 15(3) RPCR 2020, la chambre n'est pas tenue de différer une étape de la procédure, y compris sa décision, au seul motif qu'une partie dûment convoquée est absente lors de la procédure orale ; elle pourra en ce cas considérer que cette partie se fonde uniquement sur ses écritures (voir également l'art. 15(3) RPCR 2007, dont le texte est en grande partie identique à celui de l'art. 15(3) RPCR 2020). Ainsi elle pourra, conformément à l'art. 15(6) RPCR 2020, faire en sorte que l'affaire examinée soit en état d'être jugée à l'issue de la procédure orale, à moins que des raisons particulières ne s'y opposent.
- T 124/22
Résumé
In T 124/22 the parties had been summoned to oral proceedings before the board and a communication had been issued under Art. 15(1) RPBA. By letter of reply, received one day before the scheduled oral proceedings, the respondent had stated that it would not be attending the arranged oral proceedings. No substantive submissions had been made. Subsequently, the oral proceedings had been cancelled.
The board noted that the respondent's representative had provided his videoconferencing details eight days before the scheduled oral proceedings, indicating an intention to participate. However, he had notified the board of his non-participation only one day before the scheduled proceedings. Typically, such notifications were given well in advance (see also T 930/92). According to the board, given that the board's preliminary opinion had been issued ten months ahead of the scheduled hearing, the respondent had had ample time to inform the board of its non-attendance well ahead of the hearing.
In the board's opinion, while it was not uncommon for representatives to receive late instructions, they should seek timely directions from their clients, particularly when arranged oral proceedings approach. In this instance, the representative had failed to communicate promptly with the board's registry. The board pointed out that it (and presumably the opposing party's representative) had already invested some time in preparing for the oral proceedings. It recalled that according to Art. 6 of the epi Code of Conduct, members are required to act courteously in their dealings with the EPO. The same principle applied to behaviour towards other representatives (Art. 5(a) of the epi Code of Conduct).
The board also took the view that the respondent had effectively withdrawn its request for oral proceedings by declaring its intent not to attend them. In turn, the board did not consider the conduct of oral proceedings to be expedient (Art. 116(1) EPC). As a consequence, the decision was handed down in written proceedings (Art. 12(8) RPBA).