In T 390/86 the board held that the written reasons for a decision delivered during oral proceedings could only be signed by members of the deciding body who had taken part in the oral proceedings (see also T 563/11). In T 2076/11 the appeal fee was reimbursed as the written decision and the minutes of the oral proceedings were signed by the director of the organisational unit. See also chapter III.B.2.8. "Changes in the composition of the opposition division after oral proceedings".

In T 211/05, the board took the view that for a person to take part in a decision when not entitled to do so (here the director signing the decision instead of the second examiner), resulting in failure to comply with the principle that the power to examine a patent application must not only be exercised personally but also be seen – by both the applicant and the public – to be exercised personally, constituted a substantial procedural violation, in particular because it deprived the applicant of his right to be heard by the full examining division (see also T 1033/16).