The request must state the grounds on which it is based, and must set out the facts on which it relies. Thus, it must set forth the precise cause of non-compliance with the time limit concerned (i.e. the fact or obstacle preventing the required action within the time limit), specify at what time and under which circumstances the cause occurred and was removed, and present the core facts making it possible to consider whether all due care required by the circumstances had been taken in order to comply with the time limit concerned (see J 15/10). General statements with no indication of the concrete facts or events that caused the time limit to be missed do not satisfy the requirement for a duly substantiated request under Rule 136(2).
Once the time limit for filing the request for re-establishment has expired, the requester may clarify or supplement the alleged facts and, where appropriate, submit further evidence. However, the requester cannot alter the factual basis on which the original request for re-establishment had been based (see J 5/94). Any new facts introduced at this stage are not admissible and are, therefore, not taken into consideration by the deciding instance.