In T 34/90
(OJ 1992, 454) the respondent did neither. His representative argued that because he had lawfully used an alternative official language in oral proceedings before the opposition division, he should be allowed to use the same language in the hearing before the board. Although he did not actually say so, this plainly implied that appeal proceedings were simply a continuation of the first-instance (i.e. opposition) proceedings. From the principle that appeal proceedings were wholly separate and independent from first-instance proceedings for the purpose of deciding the admissibility of using an alternative official language under R. 2(1) EPC 1973
- and for other procedural purposes - the board inferred that a party could use such a language in oral proceedings before it only if he again gave the requisite notice (see also communication of the Vice-President DG 3, OJ 1995, 489).