In T 900/02 the board stated that a suspicion of partiality must inevitably arise if a member of an opposition division, or any other first instance body, first solicits and then accepts employment with a firm in which a partner or other employee is conducting a case pending before that member, even if it occurred after oral proceedings had been held. This amounted to a substantial procedural violation.

(i) Obligation to reason refusal of request

(i) Issuing of decision before expiry of time-limit to comment

In T 804/94 the board ruled that there had been a substantial procedural violation as the opposition division had issued a decision rejecting the opposition before expiry of the four-month period it had set for responding to its communication (see also T 663/99; see also chapter III.B.2.5.2).

In T 208/88 date: 1990-02-28 (OJ 1992, 22) the board held that taking a different line from an isolated appeal decision ‒ as opposed to established board of appeal case law ‒ could not be regarded as a substantial procedural violation.