In T 858/18 the board held that if a facsimile transmission of a document within the meaning of R. 50(3) EPC begins on an earlier date and extends beyond midnight to a later date, the entire document is accorded the later date as the single date of receipt. There was no legal basis for according the earlier date as the date of receipt for the part of the document arriving at the EPO before midnight.
In T 2307/15 the board pointed out that although some paragraphs were missing in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on 15 February 2016, when compared with the version filed on 16 February 2016, the former still allowed the reader to understand the reasons according to which the appellant requested the impugned decision to be set aside and the facts and evidence on which the appeal was based. The board held that the statement setting out the grounds of appeal received by fax on 15 February 2016 was therefore to be seen as being complete, since it fulfilled the purpose which it was meant to achieve. Hence, the board confirmed the approach taken in T 2061/12 and T 2317/13 (last page of statement of grounds was received minimally late). The dissenting decision in T 858/18 remained an isolated decision in an individual case based on a factual basis different from the case in hand.
This point was also addressed in the following decisions, reported elsewhere in the present publication: J 7/97 (one page missing from the description), T 683/06 (some application documents received before and some after midnight) and T 2061/12 (part of the notice of opposition received before and part of it after midnight).