| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2015:R000214.20150217 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 17 February 2015 | ||||||||
| Case number: | R 0002/14 | ||||||||
| Application number: | - | ||||||||
| IPC class: | - | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | - | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | EBA | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Suspicion of partiality against all members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal institutional/functional conflict normative conflict between Art. 10(2)(f), (3) and Art. 23(3) EPC as equal-ranking rules normative concordance suspicion partly not admissible suspicion not justified obligation of the party to prepare its case before trial obligation of the party to present its complete case at the outset of the proceedings submissions and requests after the closure of the oral proceedings  re-opening of the oral proceedings and the debate (not admitted) request to initiate new proceedings pursuant to Article 24 EPC (rejected) request to consider late submissions and requests of a party to proceedings as amicus curiae brief (rejected) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
1. The simultaneous entrustment of the Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal with judicial tasks in his capacity as judge appointed in accordance with Article 11(3) EPC and with executive tasks in his capacity as Vice-President Appeals appointed pursuant to Article 11(2) EPC causes an inherent "normative conflict" between the institutional provisions of Article 10(2)(f)and (3) EPC and Article 23(3) EPC, which cannot be completely resolved without changes to the current institutional structure of the European Patent Organisation. However, in the meantime, its impact can and must be mitigated by a continuous balancing of these potentially conflicting duties ("normative concordance") (points 36 to 40). 2. The factual scope of an objection pursuant to Article 24(3) EPC is defined in the statement of grounds of objection initiating the interlocutory proceedings under Article 24(4) EPC. Apart from a subsequent elaboration of said objection by supporting facts, evidence and arguments, the subject-matter of the proceedings, in principle, cannot be extended or changed, whether by new facts or by a new objection (points 56.3 to 56.6). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/r140002eu2.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021