f) Newly appointed representative

In T 37/97 a new representative had been appointed after the summons to oral proceedings had been duly issued. The board rejected the request for postponement and held that the new representative, before taking on the mandate, could be expected to have made sure he was available on the appointed date or to arrange for alternative representation. Furthermore, a professional representative could be expected to be able to prepare for oral proceedings with all due care within a month unless the case was exceptionally difficult, which it was not. See also J 4/03.

In T 2018/17 the board stated that the examining division gave no reasons why the appointment of a new representative was not regarded as being a serious reason for changing the date for oral proceedings. However, such a reasoning needs to be given if a division relies on it.

In T 693/95 the board had waited for two years to give the appellants time to find a legal representative of their choice. This they had failed to do. After such a long delay there was no valid reason for postponing oral proceedings.