In R 16/10 the petitioner had submitted that the wording of Art. 24(1) EPC included not only the specific situation in which one of the board members had represented a party but also the general situation where a member had previously acted as a representative of that party in any matter. The board, however, found that the petitioner's interpretation of this article did not match that of a normal reader reading it in its proper context. It explained that the wording of Art. 24(1) EPC related to involvement in the particular case in question and not to any past representation. The meaning of the English text of Art. 24(1) EPC taken as a whole, in its proper context and in the light of the other two language versions, was clear. Thus, the petition based on the alleged breach of Art. 24(1) EPC was also clearly unallowable.