In T 679/14 the board held that it was contrary to the principles of procedural efficiency and legal certainty to repeatedly adjourn oral proceedings. Referring to the Guidelines E‑II, 7.1 – June 2012 version, the board concluded that the postponement of oral proceedings on five occasions at the instigation of the examining division without serious reasons, as far as apparent from the file, constituted a procedural deficiency in the circumstances of the case in hand. The board nevertheless refrained from deciding on whether it amounted to a substantial procedural violation. The appeal fee was however reimbursed due to violation of R. 111(2) EPC (insufficient reasons).