It is not necessary to consider each and every argument of the parties in detail in a decision (R 19/10, R 17/11, R 6/12, R 15/12, R 2/13, R 19/12 of 12 April 2016 date: 2016-04-12, R 5/15).

In R 13/12 the Enlarged Board stated that while the boards have an obligation to discuss in their decisions issues and arguments to the extent that they are relevant for the decision, they may disregard irrelevant arguments (see also R 21/10). In R 16/14 the Enlarged Board stated that not explicitly addressing specific points which, in the deciding organs view, did not have to be addressed in order to arrive at an understandable decision did not mean that such points are ignored. In R 8/16 the Enlarged Board stated that not addressing specific arguments in the decision was not necessarily a fundamental violation of the petitioner’s right to be heard.

In R 19/12 of 12 April 2016 date: 2016-04-12 the Enlarged Board stated that the allegedly insufficient consideration, by a board, of arguments concerning a procedural defect before the department of first instance could only constitute a fundamental violation of the right to be heard when the alleged procedural defect impacted on the decision at first instance.

In R 8/17 the Enlarged Board held that it would have been highly questionable and contradictory for the board to have dealt in substance with an argument of a party in the written reasons after it had not allowed a discussion on it in the oral proceedings.