The right to be heard under Art. 113(1) EPC requires that those involved be given an opportunity not only to present comments (on the facts and considerations pertinent to the decision) but also to have those comments considered, that is reviewed, with respect to their relevance for the decision in the matter (R 23/10; see also R 13/12, R 12/14). In R 8/11 the Enlarged Board held that Art. 113 (1) EPC obliged the decision-making body to allow the parties to present the necessary arguments on all essential aspects of the case, to take note of these arguments and to acknowledge them in its decision (see also R 19/12 of 12 April 2016 date: 2016-04-12). In R 8/15 the Enlarged Board stated that a party must be able to examine whether the board has afforded it the right to be heard in order to decide whether or not to file a petition for review.

In R 4/12 the Enlarged Board held that oral remarks made by a chairman directly before a decision is pronounced do not form part of the reasons that must reflect, within certain limits, a party's arguments.

In R 8/15 the Enlarged Board held that Art. 113(1) EPC must be interpreted more narrowly than R. 102(g) EPC. The latter requires a board to give reasons for its decision, but infringement thereof is not as such a ground for review. Reasons may be incomplete, but as long as they permit the conclusion that the board, in the course of the appeal proceedings, substantively assessed a certain point that it found it to be relevant, there is no violation of Art. 113(1) EPC (see also R 2/18).

Decisions of boards of appeal are open only to review but not to appeal, and thus not covered by R. 111(2) EPC which requires that decisions which are open to appeal be reasoned (R 6/11; see, however, also R 12/10; see also in this chapter V.B.3.4.2).