04.03.15

The EPO’s Dutch Appeal Court Judgment Controversy: List of Political Interventions

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Epicenter of EPO controversy, not just windmills

A windmill

Summary: Dutch Socialist Party and Labour Party (among others) denounce the EPO’s actions after newspaper articles in the Netherlands

SEVERAL sources contacted Techrights last month, sharing with the site a lot of documents that relate to the Dutch scandals. One source said s/he would send “press releases and questions raised by Dutch parliamentary members of the PvdA (Labour Party) and SP (Socialist Party) in the Dutch Parliament (Tweede Kamer) and the European Parliament.”

Now that we finally have it all organised chronologically and logically we can present it in the interest of retention and future reference. We shall start with the Socialist Party, then proceed to other parties and some bodies outside of Netherlands. A lot of interventions could be found all over the place.

The European Federation of Public Service Unions was probably the latest to intervene. There was also the Dutch Labour Party, among others. Then there is the response from SP (Socialist Party). SP stated the following: (English translation [PDF])

SP: GOVERNMENT MUST NOT PERMIT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

26 Feb 2015 • The Court of Justice in The Hague last week ruled that the European Patents Organisation (EPO) is in conflict with important European fundamental rights, such as the right to strike. Security and Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten is, however, refusing to give effect to the judgment, on the grounds that the EPO – not an EU institution, but one with thirty-eight member states, including all EU countries – is an independent organisation and therefore enjoys immunity. SP Member of Parliament Michiel van Nispen finds this reasoning absurd, he says. ‘The minister is thus approving the silencing of trade unions and the fact that workers can’t in the end enforce their rights,’ he points out. ‘Independent organisations should not be hampered in their functioning, but that doesn’t mean that they have carte blanche to transgress human rights and ignore judicial rulings.’

The EPO has for a number of years been the site of conflict between management and workers. The organisation’s director refuses to recognise trade unions and even seeks to ensure that there is no contact between unions and EPO employees. The Court of Justice has ruled that this represents a limitation on the right to strike and in doing so transgresses fundamental principles of an open democracy and the democratic rule of law. SP Member of Parliament and labour specialist Paul Ulenbelt agrees, complaining that ‘this problem isn’t new. In the past, I’ve worked with the main Dutch trade union federation, the FNV, to hold the EPO liable for an occupational disease. The action failed because of their immunity. Social Affairs and Employment Minister Lodewijk Asscher should be persuading the European Union to limit the immunity of independent organisations to what this exception was intended for.’

Van Nispen and Ulenbelt both insist that the immunity and inviolability enjoyed by independent organisations must not lead to human rights abuses. They have asked the two government ministers responsible respectively for Justice and Employment, Opstelten and Asscher, to explain how to ensure that the workforce can access their rights and unions are not outlawed.

Here is the English translation (with original) [PDF] of additional questions put forth by the Socialist Party (see English-only version [PDF]):

Questions by the members Van Nispen and Ulenbelt (both SP) to the Ministers of Security and Justice and Social Affairs and Employment on the failure to respect the rights of staff unions (submitted March 2, 2015).

Question 1
Is it true that a conflict has been taking places for years between the management and a large part of the workforce at the European Patent Office (EPO) in Rijswijk? Is it true that the Director of the EPO does not recognize the staff unions and refuses to engage in dialogue with them, that e-mail traffic is blocked between the unions and members, that the right to strike has been restricted and that employees who express their disagreement are threatened with dismissal? 1 What is your reaction to this?

Question 2
What is your reaction to the ruling of the Appeal Court in The Hague that the EPO is violating the fundamental principles of an open and democratic state based on the rule of law and that its failure to respect the rights of trade unions to engage in collective action and collective bargaining is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights? 2 How can this judgment, in which the Court ordered the contested measures to be revoked, be implemented?

Question 3
Why have you ordered that bailiffs cannot execute the judgment because of the immunity that this international organization is purported to have in the contracting states? 3 On what grounds exactly? Can you explain your decision in detail?

Question 4
Does this mean that a clear judgment such as that issued by the court last week is to have no consequences? Do you not find this to be an undesirable situation?

Question 5
What procedures exist for the staff and unions to enforce their rights? Are these effective?

Question 6
How far precisely, in your opinion, should the inviolability and immunity of an international organization extend?

Question 7
Do you believe that this immunity may ever extend to the point that an organization such as the EPO can violate fundamental rights which are generally recognized in Europe, without parties such as staff unions having access to an effective means of legal recourse against it?

Question 8
Do you agree that the rules regarding inviolability and immunity were never intended to be used to violate rights with impunity and to muzzle staff unions?

Question 9
Are you willing to do something as quickly as possible, but in any case to make use of the Dutch Presidency of the European Union to impel the EU to limit the immunity to serve the purpose for which it was intended? If not, why not?

Question 10
How can we prevent an international organization that enjoys immunity from doing whatever it wants? How is it ensured that the staff and the unions are not treated as “outlaws”?

Explanation:

These questions are in addition to previous questions from the members Kerstens and Maij (both PvdA), submitted February 27, 2015 (question number 2015Z03533 ).

1: Volkskrant, 26 februari 2015: «Opstelten negeert vonnis gerechtshof». http://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/opstelten-bureau-mag-vakbond-weren~a3873491/
2: Gerechtshof Den Haag, 17 februari 2015, C/09/453749/KG ZA 13-1239
3: Aanzegging ex artikel 3a, tweede lid, van de Gerechtsdeurwaarderswet, 23 februari 2015

Also see these original questions in Dutch [PDF].

PvdA’s Kerstens and Maij asked the following questions [PDF], as mentioned the other day:

Questions by the members Kerstens and Maij (both PvdA) to the Minister of Security and Justice in the matter of the Judgment issued by the Appeal Court of the Hague against the European Patent Organisation (submitted 27 February 2015).

Question 1. Are you aware of the article “Opstelten: Appeal Court Judgment does not apply to European institution” published in the Volkskrant on 26 February 2015?

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/opstelten-bureau-mag-vakbondweren~a3873491/

Question 2. Do you remember the earlier questions regarding working conditions at the EPO? Is it true that the tense situation continues to exist, including the restriction of the right to strike?

Question 3. Is it true that the EPO refuses to revoke the controversial measures in accordance with the judgment of the Appeal Court? If yes, what are the reasons for this?

Question 4. Is it true that you are not willing to facilitate the execution of the judgment as is usual in The Netherlands? If yes, can you explain your position? What is the legal basis of your power to prevent the judgment’s execution? How often have you made use of this power in the last five years?

Question 5. On which legislation and international treaties does your decision to block the judgment’s execution rely? Have you considered a more dynamic application of the existing legislation?

Question 6. Can you give an overview of recent European and Dutch jurisprudence relating to conflicts between the immunity of international organisations and the judgments of domestic courts?

Question 7. What is your reaction to the opinion of experts that your position is at odds with the rule of law and that you prioritise immunity over human rights? What is your reaction to the statement that this erodes the authority of the courts? What is your reaction to the statement that this leads to a further worsening of the existing problem of international organisations that place themselves above the law?

Question 8. What exactly do you mean when you say that the matter has “our attention” and “that of other member states”? What does this attention consist of and what is it aimed at?

Question 9. Is it possible that one of the parties appeals to the Hoge Raad (Dutch Supreme Court) or that “cassation in the interest of the law” is requested? Do you intend to request cassation in the interest of the law?

Question 10. Have you taken note of the recent ILO agreement between employers and employees regarding the right to strike and ILO Convention 87?
Can you explain how the situation at the EPO relates to ILO Convention 87?

The Dutch Labour Party has also responded and here is the English translation of the press release [PDF]:

Conflict about social rights at the European Patent Office Is Europe applying double standards?

Why do employees of the European Patent Office in Rijswijk not have the same social rights as other workers in the Netherlands?

That is the question put by Dutch Labour Party MEP Agnes Jongerius to the European Commission in reaction to the long-running conflict between management and staff at the European Patent Office.

The employees of the patent office have no say, never mind co-determination, in relation to their working conditions at the Office. Their right to strike is severely curtailed. According to
the management, the EPO is an international organization, which may determine its own staff regulations completely independently.

“Obviously that is crazy,” says Agnes Jongerius. “In Europe we recognise the European Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights. In those legal instruments matters such as the right to strike are well-defined. And these norms are not supposed to apply to employees of what is – nota bene – a European agency. Is Europe applying double standards?”

The workers received some support in their fight this week from the Appeal Court in the Hague. The Court agreed with the staff that the EPO was violating fundamental principles of the rule of law. But VVD Minister Ivo Opstelten decided to consign this verdict to the wastepaper-basket. He is of the opinion that the EPO as an international organization is immune to the judgments of a national court.

Agnes Jongerius now wants the European Commission to intervene in the matter. And, also in the interests of all other European offices and agencies, to establish that European workers cannot and should not be deprived of their social rights. 2700 employees work at [the Hague sub-office of] the European Patent Office which processes patent applications for the entire European Union.

For further information:
Paul Sneijder, Press Officer, Dutch Labour Party, Euro-Delegation, +32 475 386675

Agnes Jongerius was later mentioned by the following statement [PDF] (see original in Dutch [PDF]):

From: SD.Delegation NL Press
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 15:35
To:
Subject: Agnes Jongerius on the conflict at the EPO

Conflict about social rights at the European Patent Office Is Europe applying double standards?

Why do employees of the European Patent Office in Rijswijk not have the same social rights as other workers in the Netherlands?

That is the question put by Dutch Labour Party MEP Agnes Jongerius to the European Commission as a reaction to the long-running conflict between management and staff at the European Patent Office.

The employees of the patent office have no say, never mind co-determination, in relation to their working conditions at the Office. Their right to strike is severely curtailed. According to the management, the EPO is an international organization, which may determine its own staff regulations completely independently.

“That is of course crazy,” says Agnes Jongerius, “In Europe we recognise the European Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights. In those instruments matters such as the right to strike are well-defined. And that is not supposed to apply to employees of what is – nota bene – a European agency. Is this a case where Europe is applying double standards?”

The workers received some support in their fight this week from the Court in the Hague. The court agreed with the staff that the Office was violating fundamental principles of the rule of law. But VVD Minister Ivo Opstelten decided to consign this verdict to the wastepaperbasket. He is of the opinion that the EPO as an international organization is immune to the judgments of a national court.

Agnes Jongerius now wants the European Commission to intervene in the matter. And, also in the interests of all other European offices and agencies, to establish that European workers cannot and should not be deprived of their social rights.

2700 employees work at [the Hague sub-office of] the European Patent Office which processes patent applications for the entire European Union.

For further information:
Paul Sneijder, Press Officer, Dutch Labour Party, Euro-Delegation, +32 475 386675

Lastly, here is a letter sent by Agnes Jongerius [PDF]:

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

FORM FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A QUESTION WITH A REQUEST FOR A WRITTEN ANSWER (Article 130)

SUBMITTED BY: Agnes JONGERIUS

SUBJECT: Injustices at the European Patent Office (EPO) in The Hague

TEXT:
Following a case brought by the staff of the European Patent Office in The Hague complaining inter alia that they were not involved or had any say in (labour) matters of the Office, and that their right to strike had been restricted by the management, the Court held that as a European body the EPO can not fall outside the legal order created by the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and those to which the EU is bound to adhere. The EPO set this judgment aside on 17 February.

1. In view of the fact that the Commission has delegated certain powers to the EPO, does the Commission agree that the EPO must adhere to the European Charter and the ECHR as a minimum requirement in all its activities, including its cooperation with the EU and its relations with the staff and unions?

2. Can the Commission confirm that it has expressed its concerns about the conduct of the EPO Administration and has requested it to restore social dialogue in line with the norms and values of the EU?

3. What steps does the Commission intend to undertake if the EPO does not follow the court’s ruling and continues to place itself outside European legal norms.

“The European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) has also [showed interest in] an intervention,” a source told us. “Details can be found here and the EPSU page refers to a further intervention by the Dutch MEP Agnes Jongerius.” (original Dutch press release and translation above). There are documents in this page (letters, questions, etc.) and the introductory text states:

European Patent Office Management places itself outside of European legal order

Management of the European Patent Office stated that they would not respect the verdict of a Dutch court arguing immunity from the European legal order. This is not acceptable and EPSU has written to management in support of the unions demands.

Relations between the unions in the European Patent Office (represented by SUEPO, an affiliate of EPSU affiliated union USF) have not been well for sometime as management of EPO is blocking access of the union to negotiations, does not allow access to the email system and blocks the union’s emails to members and workers and is threatening workers that want to engage in industrial action with repercussions. Staff representatives that speak out openly also fear disciplinary action. The branch of the union in The Hague brought its case to the attention of the Dutch Court. It ruled in favour of the union, referring to the European legal order of the European Court of Human Rights (and the Social Charter of the Council of Europe).

The Dutch Court ruled that the European Patent Office:
- Has to grant access to the email system to the union. Trade union representatives that use their work email address for trade union related activities can not be threatened with disciplinary action. The union should be allowed to send bulk mails to members and workers;

- Prohibits management of EPO to impose a maximum duration of possible strikes;

- Management of EPO should allow the union to participate in collective bargaining within 14 days after the ruling.

The Director Mr. Batistelli however issued an internal communication in which he argued that EPO has immunity being an international organisation of Member States, that the verdict of the Dutch court does not apply and that he therefore does not intend to grant the demands of the Court. A conservative minister in the Dutch government approved this vision. It is contested by experts in international law. EPSU has written to management of EPO to respect the verdict and questions have been raised in the European Parliament.

More EPO interventions or public objections may have taken place and we would love to know if we missed important ones. More questions in the Dutch Parliament are in official sites, with original and English translations shown above.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2015/04/03/nl-pdf-files-and-translations/

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

2 Comments

  1. katkatkat said,

    April 7, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    Gravatar

    Please consider the following article in all its length. Alas, anotherr suicide !

    http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2015/04/06/un-si-bon-office_4610059_3232.html?xtmc=oeb&xtcr=1

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    We received the full text of this article 2 days ago and I’m still trying to find someone who can translate it properly (English). Anyway who can help, please contact us! People on the Web do wish to know what’s going on.

What Else is New


  1. Links 10/4/2021: Linux on M1, Wine 6.6, ClamAV 0.103.2

    Links for the day



  2. Lunduke: On Mob Justice in the Tech Industry

    A new video from the former Microsofter who fears the phenomenon that’s adopted by companies like IBM



  3. IRC Proceedings: Friday, April 09, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, April 09, 2021



  4. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Appendix (Benoît Battistelli's Vichy Syndrome): Georges Henri Léon Battistelli and Charles Robert Battistelli

    Local copies with evidence of or something concrete about Benoît Battistelli’s connection to unsavoury — and by today’s standards outright fascistic — politics



  5. IBM Doubles Down on Masters Being an Acceptable Word in the Context of Technology

    3 days after this post which disproves IBM's stance or shows its double standards it once again says “Masters” in its official blog (won’t that offend and alienate some people as they insist?)



  6. Hate Letter Against Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) Backfired So Spectacularly That Signers Asked to Revoke Their Own Signatures and the List Was Then Frozen Permanently (Updated)

    "An open letter in support of Richard Matthew Stallman being reinstated by the Free Software Foundation" tops 6,100 signatures (graph generated just moments ago)



  7. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 11: The BMJV's Tweedledee: Dr Christoph Ernst

    The right-hand man of António Campinos plays a role similar to that of Herr Lutz before him



  8. Links 9/4/2021: Tanglet 1.6.0 and HPVM 1.0

    Links for the day



  9. The Libel Against Richard Stallman Did Not Age Well

    Almost 2 years down the line libel about the founder of the FSF remains online, uncorrected (in sites funded by Microsoft and IBM)



  10. The Letter in Support of the FSF and Richard Stallman is Backed by the International Community, Not American Monopolies and Nationalistic Elements

    Free software is for everybody to use, internationally, it is not the asset of a bunch of current and old monopolists (connected to the US military) that also control the media; the nature of the signatures says that out loud



  11. Gemini Over IPFS (Decentralised Web, Accessed Over Gemini Protocol)

    The Gemini protocol (gemini://) can already be used to fetch (at the back end) and present objects from a P2P-like network; we're currently exploring practical use cases and possibilities



  12. News Sites That Talk About Patents Have Become Shameless Self-Promotion 'Plugs' by Law Firms (and Sometimes Outright 'Spam' for Litigation)

    The sources of news about patent affairs have dried up; sites that actually used to investigate and report facts have since then shut down or defected to the Public Relations/marketing industry



  13. Links 9/4/2021: Kubernetes 1.21 and FFmpeg 4.4 Released

    Links for the day



  14. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, April 08, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, April 08, 2021



  15. [Meme] Self-styled Judges

    To suit a recurring theme at the EPO we hereby present Roland Lutz, a self-styled judge



  16. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 10: A Faithful Lapdog Despised and Reviled by EPO Staff

    "In any event, the "Nazi" jibes directed against Lutz seem to have triggered Battistelli who decided to take revenge on his perceived enemies inside the EPO by smearing them as “Nazis”."



  17. Links 8/4/2021: GnuPG 2.3.0, Xen 4.15, Xfdashboard 0.9.2

    Links for the day



  18. The Hate Letter Which Backfired

    The FSF is more closely aligned with its founder's vision, his antagonists have left or are leaving, and that old hate letter turned out to be a loud minority (made to appear louder by biased media) emboldened by a gish gallop of lies



  19. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, April 07, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, April 07, 2021



  20. IBM: We Can Say It... You Cannot

    Blog posts such as this new one help show the hypocrisy or the double standards of IBM, looking to control speech while attacking people's (software) freedom/civil liberties and profiting from atomic bombs



  21. The Collapse of Microsoft Windows

    Although the corporate media keeps insisting that Microsoft is doing well, government (or military) bailouts keep the company afloat while its desperate attempts to remain relevant (as the common carrier languishes) merit a debate



  22. Links 8/4/2021: Mesa 21.0.2, GNU Releases, and Stable Kernels

    Links for the day



  23. Petition in Support of FSF's Decision to Put Its Founder in the Board Doubles Size of Hate Letter Propped Up by Corporate Media (Partly Funded by Monopolies)

    You cannot fool the population for eternity and there's a reflexive response to a campaign of misinformation, as the graph above shows; notice it keeps growing and growing, albeit not the defamatory one from the (Google-funded) Mozilla- and Red Hat-connected Luis Villa, who put in the GNONE Foundation Microsoft people



  24. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 9: A Veritable Virtuoso of Legal Sophistry

    "Lutz is also reputed to be closely linked to the German branch of the influential UPC lobby group centred around Prof. Winfried Tilmann."



  25. He Said, Xi Said: Hard to Censor Techrights and It's More Than a Web Site

    An explanation of some of the latest Techrights changes (mostly work on IPFS and Gemini this week, as they complement the Web site)



  26. A Patent System for Giant Corporations Like Boeing and Airbus, Not for Ordinary European Citizens

    There's hardly any illusion left that the patent system in Europe is supposed to serve the public; instead what we're seeing is an office that lost sight of its purpose and is instead trying to make law firms and their largest clients richer



  27. Links 7/4/2021: Godot 3.3 RC 8, Canonical Targets Robotics

    Links for the day



  28. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, April 06, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, April 06, 2021



  29. Pro-Free Software Foundation Petition Soon Reaching 6,000 Signatures (and Still Rising Steadily)

    It seems rather apparent that not many people have been conned by the hateful corporations, their corporate media, and corporate-led (or funded) NGOs that insisted FSF should reject its very own founder



  30. Links 7/4/2021: “Getting Things GNOME” Reaches 0.5, IBM Boasts Its Role in Masters

    Links for the day


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts