Lid van een vereniging van vertegenwoordigers

Decision of the Legal Board of Appeal 5 oktober 2011, J 8/10 (N.N.)

Zoals de "rules on the filing of authorisations" zeggen, kan een juridische beroepsbeoefenaar niet hetzelfde worden behandeld als een lid van een vereniging van vertegenwoordigers in de zin van Rule 152 (11) EPC.

"(11) The authorisation of an association of representatives shall be deemed to be an authorisation of any representative who can provide evidence that he practises within that association."

The contested decision relates to registration of an association of representatives under Rule 152(11) EPC. The appellant is a legal practitioner authorised to practise in Germany. On 25 September 2008, he and 11 professional representatives (European patent attorneys) applied for registration as an association. The EPO's Legal Division duly registered the 11 professional representatives as association No. xxx, but by letter of 21 November 2008 said the appellant could not be registered as a member; only professional representatives could form associations. The appellant then requested an appealable decision.

IV. In that statement it was argued in particular that the wording and rationale of Rule 152(11) EPC did not justify treating legal practitioners differently from professional representatives. The rule referred to "representatives", not "professional representatives"

12. The appellant has acknowledged that acceding to his wish that legal practitioners be included in associations under Rule 152(11) EPC would conflict with the existing rules on the filing of authorisations. But he maintains that the President's decision (see point 2.2 above) is a purely administrative provision which has to be weighed against Article 134(8) and Rule 152(11) EPC, and that the decision on the filing of authorisations is certainly not higherranking law than the Council's interpretation decision and the "Communication on matters concerning representation before the EPO" (OJ EPO 1979, 92, see point 2.5 above). The board cannot agree. For the reasons given above (points 2.3 and 2.8), it is bound by the decision on the filing of authorisations taken under Rule 152(1) EPC.

13. In his statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant pointed out that paragraph 11 and the other provisions of Rule 152 EPC referred merely to "representatives", drawing no distinction between professional representatives and legal practitioners. For the board, the term "representatives" requires interpretation. The decision on the filing of authorisations, based on Rule 152(1) EPC, does draw that distinction (see point 2.2 above), which also affects other provisions of Rule 152 EPC. For example, the "required authorisation" mentioned in Rule 152(6) EPC refers implicitly to the decision on the filing of authorisations; as a result, the legal consequences of Rule 152(6) EPC occur under differing conditions for the two professional groups. Similarly with Rule 152(11) EPC: as the law stands and taking Rule 152 EPC in its overall context, the two groups are again treated differently (see point 11 above).

14. How authoritative the Legal Division still considers the interpretation decision on Rule 101(9) EPC 1973 (now Rule 152 (11) EPC) to be can remain moot. But the board would point out that in practice the EPO some time ago stopped applying the third criterion laid down in its communication interpreting the Council's decision, i.e. that only professional representatives can act in business matters in the name of the association (see point VI above, confirmed in J 16/96, Reasons 4.3). For example, persons who are neither professional representatives nor legal practitioners are to be found acting in the name of the association to which the appellant wishes to belong. In this respect, the EPO's procedure for registering associations is no longer as described in the "Communication on matters concerning representation before the EPO" (OJ EPO 1979, 92, see point 2.7 above).