In T 1012/03 the applicant, having been summoned to oral proceedings before the examining division in The Hague, had requested that oral proceedings take place in Munich instead. The board noted that Art. 116 EPC 1973 did not expressly stipulate the location where oral proceedings had to take place. The board examined whether the President had the power to establish examining divisions in The Hague and concluded that such a power was provided for by Art. 10(1), (2)(a) and (b) EPC 1973. The board concluded that in the case in hand the justification for conducting oral proceedings in The Hague could be deduced from Art. 116 EPC 1973 in conjunction with Art. 10(1), (2) (a) and (b) EPC 1973. See also T 689/05, T 933/10, T 1142/12.

The examining division's rejection of the applicant's request that the oral proceedings be held in Munich instead of The Hague must be reasoned, R. 111(2) EPC, R. 68(2) EPC 1973 (see T 689/05, T 933/10).

In T 1142/12 the board considered that the practical aspects of the organisation of oral proceedings were matters of EPO management, which came under the power of the President of the EPO as provided by Art. 10(2) EPC. The board held that the examining divisions were clearly not allowed to take a decision on this matter. When not acceding to a request to hold oral proceedings in Munich instead of The Hague, the examining division did not take a decision but only expressed the way the EPO was managed. Consequently, that issue was not subject to appeal, nor could the board refer a question on the venue of oral proceedings to the Enlarged Board. In R 13/14 the Enlarged Board clarified that the wording used in T 1142/12 did not mean that the board had refused to decide on the issue; rather, the board had implicitly decided on the request and refused it.

In 2017, following reforms adopted in 2016, the boards moved to a building in Haar, on the outskirts of Munich. The third of a number of points of law on the right to oral proceedings referred to the Enlarged Board by the board in T 831/17 (see also in this chapter III.C.2.1. "Right to oral proceedings in examination, opposition and appeal proceedings") was: " If the answer to either of the first two questions is no, can a board hold oral proceedings in Haar without infringing Art. 116 EPC if the appellant objects to this site as not being in conformity with the EPC and requests that the oral proceedings be held in Munich instead?" The board's referral is now pending as G 2/19.