G 0001/14 - Refund appeal fee (inadmissible)

EPO G 1/14 (EPO G1/14)

For the decision, click here [A] / DE (24.11.2015)

Key points

• The Enlarged Board declares the referral in G 1/14 inadmissible.
• The referring Board had assumed that the notice of appeal had been filed after expiry of the time limit for doing so (and the same for the appeal fee) and had referred a question about whether the appeal was therefore inadmissible or deemed to be not filed (and hence, whether the appeal fee was to be refunded).
• The Enlarged Board notes that the appeal was in fact filed in time, because within 2 months of actual receipt by the professional representative. The decision had been delivered 12 days earlier at the office of the professional representative, however by UPS (with " tracking information"  and signature for receipt by some person) and not by post. The Enlarged Board finds that delivery by UPS not a notification by registered letter with advice of delivery is, as required under Rule 126(1) EPC (as it then was). The amicus curiae submission states that therefore,  Rule 125(4) EPC applies and the date of notification is the date of actual receipt by the professional representative (as reviewed in paragraph. X of the decision) [update 13 Oct 2016].
• The reasons why delivery by UPS is not the prescribed notification by registered letter with advice of delivery are explained by the amicus curiae submission of Dr. Hans Wegner. Essentially, the term "advice of delivery" refers to the advice of delivery as regulated in the Universal Post Convention of 1878 (text included in said amicus curiae). 
• Hence, an answer to the referred question was not " required"  and the referral is inadmissible.
• In the meantime, Rule 126 has been changed precisely to allow for notification by delivery services (CA/D 6/14 of 15.10.2014 (OJ EPO 2015, A17), in force as of 01.04.2015).
   
• Note that  the proceedings for G 2/14, about basically the same question, have been terminated.
• Please note further that the referring technical Board is of the opinion that document is deemed to have been notified upon the date of receipt by Mr./Ms. Weber (who had signed for receipt) pursuant to Rule 125(4) EPC (communication of 4 August 2016) [update 13 Oct 2016].