Error message

Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $nid is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).

CLR V A 9.5.7.D No reasons for refusal of request to change location for oral proceedings

CLR V A 9.5.7.C No reasons for refusal of request for postponement

In T 1505/06 the board held that the failure of the opposition division to include in its decision its reasons for refusing the request for postponement was a substantial procedural violation.

CLR V A 9.5.7.B Submissions of parties as response to summons

CLR V A 9.5.7.A Failure to summon for oral proceedings

CLR V A 9.5.7 Oral proceedings

a) Failure to summon for oral proceedings

b) Submissions of parties as response to summons

c) No reasons for refusal of request for postponement

CLR V A 9.5.6 Request for interview

CLR V A 9.5.5 Guidelines

CLR V A 9.5.4 Search

CLR V A 9.5.3 Procedural violation must be committed by the department whose decision is under appeal

In T 469/92 the alleged procedural violation was not an act of the opposition division, whose decision was the subject of the appeal, but instead that of the examining division. Even if such an act were in breach of the procedural requirements of the Convention, a board of appeal would not have the power to order reimbursement.

CLR V A 9.5.2 Violation must be substantial and affect the entire proceedings

In T 682/91 the board of appeal emphasised that a procedural violation which did not adversely affect the rights of the parties could not be considered substantial. The seriousness of a procedural violation derived from its adverse effects.