In T 193/87 (OJ 1993, 207) the board found that if a notice of opposition was filed in a language of a contracting state other than an official language of the EPO and the translation prescribed in Art. 14(5) EPC (former Art. 14(4) EPC 1973) was not filed in due time, the notice should be deemed not to have been received, and the opposition fee was to be refunded (following T 323/87, OJ 1989, 343). Since the opposition had not come into effect, there was no question of examining its admissibility under R. 77(1) EPC (former R. 56(1) EPC 1973).
In T 960/95 the notice of opposition was filed without having been signed. The board stated that a notice of opposition should be duly signed (R. 50(3), first sentence, EPC in conjunction with R. 86 EPC; former R. 36(3), first sentence, EPC 1973 in conjunction with R. 61a EPC 1973). The omission of the signature was remedied within the time limit set by the opposition division, and the notice of appeal therefore retained its original date of receipt (R. 50(3), third sentence, EPC; former R. 36(3), third sentence, EPC 1973). Similarly, in T 1165/03, the board rejected the respondent's argument that the absence of a signature on the notice of opposition as filed was fatal because the opponent had remedied the deficiency by supplying a signature when invited to do so under R. 50(3) EPC (former R. 36(3) EPC 1973). The question whether that or any other signature of the opponent on file was genuine might arise in the light of subsequent developments, but the file showed that a signed notice of opposition had ultimately been filed within the prescribed period.