5.3.2 Oral proceedings not held despite the lack of an explicit withdrawal
Where oral proceedings are scheduled upon a party's request and that party subsequently expresses its intention not to attend, such statement is interpreted in a considerable number of decisions as equivalent to a withdrawal of the request for oral proceedings.
In T 3/90 (OJ 1992, 737) oral proceedings were appointed as a result of a party's request. The party subsequently stated that it would not be represented at the oral proceedings. The board held that such a statement should normally be treated as equivalent to a withdrawal of the request for oral proceedings (see also T 696/02, T 1027/03, T 1482/05, T 871/07, T 1229/12, T 2188/12, T 320/16, T 517/17, T 576/17, T 1020/17, T 232/18, T 849/18, T 901/18, T 1359/19, T 1521/19, T 1675/19, T 2200/19, T 2718/19, T 2773/19, T 2899/19, T 3224/19, T 3257/19, T 872/20, T 976/20, T 1446/20, T 1022/21, T 1598/21, T 124/22, T 441/22, T 2542/22, T 104/23).
By stating that it will not attend oral proceedings and by requesting a decision on the record, a party unequivocally expresses that it is interested in an immediate decision on the file as stood and that it does not wish to present its arguments orally in the requested oral proceedings (T 1482/05; see also T 1278/21, T 832/22). Notwithstanding the missing request for a decision on the record, the board held in T 2152/19 that when a party states that it will not be attending oral proceedings, it is unequivocally expressing its interest in an immediate decision on the file as it stands and implying that it does not wish to present its arguments orally in the previously requested oral proceedings. See also T 320/16, T 502/16 and T 2542/22.