T 0572/19 (Noise attenuation trim part / Autoneum Management AG) vom 05.04.2024

Signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC applies to written decision as a whole - (yes)
Missing signature is substantial procedural violation - (yes)
Remedy by retrospective signature on behalf, and written explanation - (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (yes)

1. The signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC applies to the written decision, including its substantiation (Reasons 4 to 8).
2. The purpose of the signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC is only achieved if there is an unbroken chain of manifest personal responsibility, taken by each member of the decision-making body who is assigned to the case, throughout the decision-making process, including for the written decision (Reasons 12).
3. The omission of a member's signature from the appealed decision was not retrospectively remedied by another member's signing on their behalf and providing a written explanation. In particular, this could not be seen as a correction under Rule 140 EPC. The omission was a substantial procedural violation, and the decision is invalid (Reasons 35 to 46).