2.2.6 Processing of debit orders

In T 773/07 the appellant's deposit account held insufficient funds to cover the appeal fee. The board rejected the argument that this fee could or should have been booked before six other fees on the relevant date. It was not for the EPO cashier to choose priorities between fees to be paid, all the more so since under the ADA it was the responsibility of the account holder to ensure that the account contained sufficient funds at all times.

In T 871/08 of 23 February 2009 date: 2009-02-23 the opponent had indicated that the appeal fee would be paid by online debit order, but also requested that, if this was not done by one day before expiry of the Art. 108 EPC 1973 time limit, the EPO should debit the fee. The board held that the payment of the appeal fee was exclusively the responsibility of the appellant or its representative, who could not discharge themselves by shifting the responsibility to the EPO, let alone with a conditional order. However, in T 2364/12 a different conclusion was reached in the circumstances of that case. It is to be noted that the requirement that debit orders must be "unconditional" was introduced in the ADA 2009, remaining in the ADA versions of 2014 and 2015 and being removed from the ADA 2017.