In T 1505/06 the board held that the failure of the opposition division to include in its decision its reasons for refusing the request for postponement was a substantial procedural violation.
In ex parte case T 1750/14, the appellant's representatives requested a postponement of the final date for making submissions (under R. 116(1) EPC) repeatedly and separately from their request to postpone the date for oral proceedings. The request for postponement of the final date was never withdrawn and the appellant's desire to file amended claims was made clear even during oral proceedings before the examining division. Because of the lack of substantiation within the meaning of R. 111(2) EPC as to the refusal of the request for postponement of the final date for making submissions, the board held that the examining division had committed a substantial procedural violation. Nevertheless, the board considered that a party could not gain a procedural advantage from an omission of its own. Its procedural behaviour spoke against regarding the reimbursement of the appeal fee as equitable within the meaning of R. 103(1)(a) EPC.