Where an appellant was misled by the EPO into thinking that the decision issued was only a draft that will be replaced by a second version, it is sufficient that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit as counted from notification of the second written decision (T 830/03).
Where the opposition division misleadingly issued two decisions, it sufficed if the statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit applicable to the second decision, even if it was outside the time limit for the first decision (T 993/06).
In T 124/93 the parties were misled by the re-dating of the decision by the opposition division. Following the principle of good faith governing the relationship between the EPO and the parties acting before it, their submissions received after expiration of the normal terms were considered to have been made in due time (see e.g. T 124/93, T 1176/00 and T 1694/12 in comparable cases).