4. Interpretation of the various language texts of the EPC

Pursuant to Art. 177 EPC, all three language texts of the EPC are equally authentic and form a single original text.

In J 8/95 it was held that even if one language version of a provision of the EPC were found to differ from the other two versions, no legal consequences could be derived from that version other than those which could be derived from the other two versions – regardless of the language of the proceedings. A difference in the wording in one language would have to be considered only in so far as it could form one element of the interpretation. In the case at issue, however, the provision under consideration, even in the allegedly different version, could readily be understood in context in the same way as the other two official languages, with the result that all three versions of the provision corresponded as far as content was concerned (see also T 2321/08).

The board in T 1914/12 observed that Art. 114(1) EPC, albeit in its English version only, distinguished facts, evidence and arguments, so that the legislature must have considered them to be three distinct categories. Taking the English version of Art. 114 EPC, which seemed to it to reflect the legislative intention more accurately, the board held that arguments had to be treated differently from facts and evidence and that the discretion provided for in Art. 114(2) EPC did not extend to late-filed arguments.

In opinion G 1/18 the Enlarged Board noted that there are some differences in the wording of the first sentence of Art. 108 EPC in the three language versions. The English version begins with the term "notice of appeal", whereas the French and German versions use "le recours" and "die Beschwerde", respectively, as opposed to "l'acte de recours" and "die Beschwerdeschrift.” This cannot be taken as a basis for inferring any legislative intent. The initial versions of this first sentence of Art. 108 EPC 1973, now EPC 2000, were drafted in French and German only and used the words "recours" and "Beschwerde" respectively. Whichever language is taken, the article's first sentence provides that an appeal is initiated by filing notice of appeal within a period of two months and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations. In what follows, "notice of appeal filed" and "appeal filed" are to be understood as synonyms, as are "notice of appeal not filed" and "appeal not filed"(see point IV.1(1) of the Reasons).

The board in T 844/18 recalled that Art. 33(4) Vienna Convention prescribes that in case of a difference in the meaning between two or more equally authentic texts, the treaty must be given the meaning which best reconciles the texts having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty. The board stated that in order to interpret "any person" in Art. 87(1) EPC, it was necessary to interpret the legal concept of "any person" in Art. 4A Paris Convention, the interpretation given in both treaties needing to be the same. This raised certain linguistic issues which had to be borne in mind: the authentic text of the Paris Convention is written in French, the EPC is written in German, English and French, all texts being equally authentic.