D 0001/85 (Substantial differences in marking) of 25.07.1985
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1985:D000185.19850725
- Date of decision
- 25 July 1985
- Case number
- D 0001/85
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- -
- IPC class
- -
- Language of proceedings
- French
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- -
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- -
- Applicant name
- -
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- -
- Headnote
1. Marking of paper for the European Qualifying Examination must be done bearing in mind the basic principle of equality laid down in particular in Article 12(1) of the Regulation.
2. The fact that this requirement is subject to monitoring by the Disciplinary Board of Appeal, coupled with the principle of "transparency" of administrative actions make it necessary that where marks awarded by individual examiners differ substantially the latter should provide explanatory notes.
3. Where a candidate is a borderline case the Committee must make recommendations and the Examination Board specifically discuss the matter. Compliance with these requirements must be clear from a study of the file which is to be made known on request to the unsuccessful candidate, failing which the Examination Board's decision will be null and void.
- Relevant legal provisions
- Regulation on the European qualifying examination Art 12(1)Regulation on the European qualifying examination Art 5(3)Regulation on the European qualifying examination Art 6(1)
- Keywords
- Substantial Differences in marks proposed by examiners
Advisability of furnishing comments in borderline cases
Need for the Examination Committee's recommendations and consideration by the Examination Board - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
- Citing cases
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The decision of the Examination Board communicated on 13 November 1984 is set aside and the matter referred back to the Board for a new decision.
2. The appeal fee is to be reimbursed.
3. The appellant's other requests are rejected.