In several decisions the boards considered the question of the responsible person who could or should have detected the omission.

In T 812/04 the board held that the person to be taken into account for the purposes of establishing the point in time when the appellant was no longer prevented from carrying out an unperformed act was the duly appointed representative.

The one-year period is not an alternative to the two-month period; a request has to be filed within two months of the removal of the cause of non-compliance, and no request can be filed more than one year after expiry of the unobserved time limit (J 11/17).