The fact that a system had operated efficiently for many years has been put forward as evidence in many decisions that it was normally satisfactory (see J 31/90, J 32/90, T 309/88 of 28 February 1990 date: 1990-02-28, T 30/90, J 7/15). In T 130/83 of 8 May 1984 date: 1984-05-08 the board stated that if a proper reminder system was instituted by a representative in order to guard against the consequences of oversight in a busy office, this was itself strong prima facie evidence of the taking of care by the representative (see also T 869/90 of 15 March 1991 date: 1991-03-15, T 715/91, T 111/92 of 3 August 1992 date: 1992-08-03).

However, in T 1465/07, the board disagreed with the view that a monitoring system of time limits can be held to have been normally satisfactory because it worked without previous problems even though doubts existed. Evidence that such a monitoring system operated efficiently for many years will weigh in favour of a finding of a normally satisfactory character but will be counterbalanced by evidence that main features of such a satisfactory character, such as an independent cross-check, are missing. In that case a satisfactory character will be excluded (see also T 1962/08, J 14/16, J 9/16).

In T 1764/08 the board considered that the mere allegation that the case at issue was the first instance of unintended failure in filing an appeal does not show that all due care was normally observed and does not prove that a satisfactory system was in place in the representative's office.