In T 315/87 of 14 February 1989 date: 1989-02-14, the appellant's former representative had paid two fees for re-establishment of rights, one in respect of the time limit for filing notice of appeal and the other in respect of the time limit for filing the statement of grounds. The board, however, considered that the case involved a single event because the two time limits had been missed for the same reason and therefore held that one of the fees had to be reimbursed.

In T 2017/12 (OJ 2014, A76) the appellant had missed the time limits for filing the appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal. It had paid the fee for re-establishment of rights twice, once for each missed time limit. The board refused the request for refund of one of the fees. In line with decision J 26/95, the board considered that the corresponding time limits expired independently of one another, notwithstanding the fact that they were triggered by the same event. Consequently, two fees for re-establishment were indeed due and hence a refund of one of those fees was not possible.

See also chapter III.E.4.5. "Number of re-establishment fees due where more than one time limit is missed".