D 0004/80 (Jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board) 20-01-1982
I. On 21, 22 and 23 November 1979 the appellant sat the first Qualifying Examination for professional representatives before the European Patent Office.
II. On 19 March 1980 the Chairman of the Examination Board informed him that he had failed the examination...
III. On 14 April 1980 the appellant filed an appeal pursuant to Article 23 of the Regulation on the European Qualifying Examination to the Examination Board against the marking of the papers themselves.
IV. In submissions of 19 May 1980 to the Chairman of the Examination Board, the appellant complained that he had not been able to look at his examination papers and their assessment by the Board. ...
V. The appellant further complained that, as a German, he had to sit a qualifying examination while persons in other Contracting States with the same qualifications did not have to do so. It was not in accordance with the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, particularly Article 3, or with the European Patent Convention that a group of persons should be discriminated against vis-à-vis representatives in other Contracting States because of national particularities...
1. Under Article 23(1) of the Regulation on the European Qualifying Examination, an appeal lies from decisions of the Examination Board on grounds of infringement of that Regulation; if the decision is not rectified, the appeal is to be remitted to the Disciplinary Board of Appeal. The powers and responsibilities of this Board of Appeal in disciplinary matters are set out in Article 8 of the Regulation on discipline for professional representatives of 21 October 1977. Under that provision that Board has jurisdiction only over final decisions of the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute and the Disciplinary Board of the European Patent Office. That provision is by analogy applicable to appeals concerning infringement of the Regulation on the European Qualifying Examination. Consequently the Disciplinary Board of Appeal has no jurisdiction to decide whether Article 163 EPC is lawful or not and a fortiori no jurisdiction to decide whether or not it conflicts with Article 3 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. That part of the appeal concerning the lawfulness of Article 163 EPC is thus inadmissible. It is therefore to be dismissed without more...
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
The complaint concerning the lawfulness of Article 163 EPC is not admissible before the Disciplinary Board of Appeal.
That part of the appeal is dismissed...