b) Languages

Where the translation of the notice of appeal in an official language of the EPO was not filed in due time, the notice was deemed not to have been received according to Art. 14(5) EPC 1973 and the appeal not to have been filed (T 323/87, OJ 1989, 343; see also T 126/04).

Where the notice of appeal was filed in a non-official language by a company not entitled to benefit from the provisions of Art. 14(4) EPC 1973 and a translation into an official language was filed on the same day, the notice of appeal was nonetheless deemed not to have been filed. In view of G 6/91 (OJ 1992, 491), where the translation was filed at the same time as the original, the EPO could not take it as the "official" notice of appeal and ignore the original as superfluous. As further stated in G 6/91 "a translation cannot become the original; whatever the date on which it is filed it remains a translation, with all ensuing legal consequences, including the possibility of correction to bring it into conformity with the original" (T 1152/05 and T 41/09). The residence or principal place of business of the professional representative used was irrelevant (T 149/85, OJ 1986, 103 and T 41/09).

In T 2133/10 the board referred to G 6/91 that a party who wanted to benefit from a fee reduction under R. 6(3) EPC must file the translation "no earlier than simultaneously" with the original. From a contextual reading of these separate parts the board inferred that the terms "at the same time" and "simultaneously" were used synonymously and were meant at least to cover the case at hand, i.e. where the original and translation were filed together in a single filing on the same date. Thus, if the original and translation are filed together a fee reduction under R. 6(3) EPC should apply.