The provisions of Art. 15(2) RPBA 2007 and the 2007 Notice balance the interests of the parties and the public taking into account, among other factors, an efficient use of resources and capacities of the Office. Thus, a request for postponing the date of oral proceedings may be refused if it is late filed (T 601/06, T 1053/06, T 518/10, T 1101/13, T 1663/13).

In T 1080/99 (OJ 2002, 568) the board had made it clear in a letter sent almost three months before appointed oral proceedings that a request by a party for postponement of the oral proceedings did not meet all the requirements of the 2000 Notice. The party, instead of attempting to supplement its original request as soon as possible, chose to react to the board's letter only one week before the appointed oral proceedings. The board held that the additional reasons and evidence for the request for postponement were received too late and could therefore not be accepted.

In T 601/06 the board considered the request to postpone the oral proceedings to be late filed. The representative should have been aware when receiving the summons that he would be prevented from attending the oral proceedings and should have filed his request immediately. Filing the request more than one month later was not considered to fulfil the respective requirements of Art. 15(2) RPBA 2007 or of the 2007 Notice (see also T 485/09, T 182/14). The board also referred to T 514/06, in which a request for postponement was made a couple of days before the set date was granted. The board in T 601/06 considered that, taking into account the circumstances of T 514/06 (a case of death within the family), the request had not been late filed. See also T 231/13.