In T 193/87 (OJ 1993, 207) the board found that if a notice of opposition was filed in a language of a contracting state other than an official language of the EPO and the prescribed translation was not filed in due time (Art. 14(4) and (5) EPC 1973; cf. Art. 14(4) EPC), the notice should be deemed not to have been received, and the opposition fee was to be refunded (following T 323/87, OJ 1989, 343). Since the opposition had not come into effect, there was no question of examining its admissibility under R. 56(1) EPC 1973 (cf. R. 77(1) EPC).
In T 960/95 the notice of opposition was filed without having been signed. The board stated that a notice of opposition should be duly signed (R. 36(3), first sentence, EPC 1973, R. 61a EPC 1973; cf. R. 50(3), first sentence, EPC, R. 86 EPC). The omission of the signature was remedied within the time limit set by the opposition division, and the notice of opposition therefore retained its original date of receipt (R. 36(3), third sentence, EPC 1973; cf. R. 50(3), third sentence, EPC; see also T 1165/03).