D 0005/86 (Conditions for a disciplinary measure) of 29.02.1988
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1988:D000586.19880229
- Date of decision
- 29 February 1988
- Case number
- D 0005/86
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- -
- IPC class
- -
- Language of proceedings
- German
- 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. An infringement of the rules of professional conduct must be established to the satisfaction of the disciplinary body before it can impose a disciplinary measure. Absolute certainty is not required, but a degree of probability which in human experience verges on certainty. A disciplinary measure cannot be imposed if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the infringement has occurred.
2. The Disciplinary Board of Appeal may elect not to remit the case under Article 12 of its Additional Rules of Procedure if so much time has elapsed that it is unlikely that the facts can still be clarified.
3. Similarly, it may elect not to impose a disciplinary measure if satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings have served their purpose.
- Relevant legal provisions
- Additional rules of procedure of the Disciplinary Board of Appeal Art 12Additional rules of procedure of the Disciplinary Board of Appeal Art 6European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973Regulation on discipline for professional representatives Art 1(1)Regulation on discipline for professional representatives Art 2Regulation on discipline for professional representatives Art 22(1)Regulation on discipline for professional representatives Art 22(3)Regulation on discipline for professional representatives Art 25(1)Regulation on discipline for professional representatives Art 4(1)
- Keywords
- Conditions for imposing a disciplinary measure
Rules of professional conduct/infringement/absolute certainty
Rules of professional conduct/infringement/high degree of probability
Rules of professional conduct/infringement/reasonable doubt
Obligation to be truthful - obligation to cooperate
Contempt of a disciplinary body
Remittal (no)
Disciplinary measure, imposition (no) - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
- Citing cases
- T 0109/91
ORDER
11. In the light of the foregoing the Board is not imposing any of the disciplinary measures under Article 4 RDR. As it is not remitting the case either, the Board avails itself of its powers under Article 22(3) RDR in conjunction with Article 111(1) EPC and Article 7(2)(a) RDR and dismisses the matter. The Board does not propose to order under Article 27(2), 3rd sentence, RDR that the costs necessarily incurred by the appellant be borne in whole or in part by the Institute, for given the appellant's conduct during the disciplinary proceedings there is no reason for it to do so. The appellant has in any case made no such request, and in his grounds for appeal has acknowledged that his conduct during the proceedings "was not always felicitous".
On the contrary, the Board takes the view that in this case it would have been appropriate to order the appellant to bear a substantial proportion of the costs, because his uncooperative conduct considerably hindered the disciplinary bodies in their work, thus drawing out the proceedings unnecessarily. However, the Board considers that Article 27(2) RDR prevents it from making such an order, because it makes provision for costs to be awarded against the professional representative only if the matter is not dismissed.