In R 16/10 the Enlarged Board held that the meaning of the English text of Art. 24(1) EPC taken as a whole, in its proper context and with respect to the text of the other two languages, was clear. It rejected the petitioner's argument that Art. 24(1) EPC included not only the specific situation where one of the members had represented a party in the case in question but also the general situation where a member had previously acted as representative of that party in any matter. Art. 24(1) EPC related to involvement in the particular case in question and not to any past representation (see also chapter V.B.4.1. "Article 112a(2)(a) EPC – alleged breach of Article 24 EPC".