EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

11.04.15

The EPO’s Investigative Unit Exposed: Part II

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Benoît Battistelli created a shady, unaccountable army

Cobra

Summary: How the President of the European Patent Office got his own private mercenaries, who can outrageously enough ignore European laws and human rights, in order to guard his unprecedented tyranny

“In March 2013,” told us a source, “EPO staff representatives submitted their concerns about Circular No. 342 to the Administrative Council in the document CA/33/13.”

Circular No. 342 was the subject of Part I (textual copy was cited/attached) and here is the response to it [PDF], along with context in the PDF (scroll down to the bottom). Our emphasis is added in yellow to better suit quick readers:

CA/33/13
Orig.: en

Munich, 12.03.2013

SUBJECT: Investigations Guidelines of the EPO
SUBMITTED BY: President of the European Patent Office
ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for information)


SUMMARY

This document is submitted by the staff representatives via the President of the European Patent Office, in accordance with Article 9(2.2)(b) of the Administrative Council’s rules of
procedure (see CA/D 8/06).

Recommendation for publication:
No, in view of possible ongoing legal disputes.


On 01.01.2013 the Office adopted Guidelines for the investigation of fraud, misconduct and harassment. These Investigative Guidelines give excessive powers to the President of the EPO and to the Investigation Unit. The Investigation Guidelines fail to provide staff with basic protection against self-incrimination, incrimination of family members and violation of private property, including the home. The level of evidence required, “on the balance of probabilities” (i.e. more likely than not) is insufficient in view of the potentially grave consequences, including dismissal.

It has to be clarified if the Investigation Guidelines are in contradiction with international law, namely the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION
II. BACK-GROUND
III. MAIN ISSUES
A. NO LIMITATION TO THE PRESIDENT’S POWERS TO ORDER INVESTIGATION
B. NO PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION OR INCRIMINATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.
C. NO PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
D. INSUFFICIENT LEVEL OF PROOF
E. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
F. NO LEGAL ASSISTANCE DURING HEARINGS
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND REQUEST
ANNEX 1 CIRCULAR NO.342 (“GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE EPO”)


I. INTRODUCTION

The Central Staff Committee welcomes the initiative of the President of the EPO to establish a Code of Conduct, a Staff Dignity Policy and Investigation Guidelines. Present Circulars 341 (“Formal procedure on staff dignity”) and 342 (“Guidelines for Investigations of the EPO”) fail, however, to provide the right protection needed and furthermore may infringe fundamental human rights. The present document concentrates on Circular 342 (investigation guidelines), but many of the shortcomings also apply to Circular 341.

II. BACK-GROUND

In all the EPO’s Member States a clear separation of power between the legislative and the operative exist. Amongst the typical safe-guards that apply is, for example, the need for a search warrant for the police to be able to enter private property.

In the EPO no such separation of powers exists. The President is in the EPO head of Internal Audit who act as the “internal police”. He is also the ultimate “judge”, deciding whether disciplinary measures will be taken or not. In so deciding he is not obliged to follow the recommendations of the disciplinary boards. The strong powers of the President and the Investigative Unit that reports to him are not in any way balanced by safeguards for staff subject to or involved in investigative processes. The most serious flaws are listed below. More can be found in the opinion of the General Advisory Committee (Annex 1).

III. MAIN ISSUES

A. NO LIMITATION TO THE PRESIDENT’S POWERS TO ORDER INVESTIGATION

Circular 342 foresees two triggers for the investigative process:

a) an allegation of misconduct (Art. 9(2)), or
b) a request by the President (Art. 9(3)).

Such a request by the President does not require a suspicion of misconduct or other justification. According to Arts. 10 and 11, allegations of misconduct are subject to initial review and preliminary evaluation before an investigative process is started. This is not the case for requests by the President. In fact, there is nothing in the Guidelines that would hinder the President of investigating whom he wants and how he wants, with or without informing the subject of the investigation.

B. NO PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION OR INCRIMINATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

Circular 342 does not foresee a right to remain silent. On the contrary: according to Art. 8(1) “All persons covered by … this Circular shall be obliged to co-operate fully with the investigative unit”. According to Art. 8(3) of the Guidelines as adopted, “failure to co-operate without legal justification” may constitute misconduct and hence expose the person concerned to disciplinary proceedings. Neither the Service Regulations nor the Guidelines provide any legal basis for non-co-operation: the duty to co-operate thus seems absolute.

C. NO PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

The Guidelines explicitly foresee search and seizure of all data and materials owned by the Office or present on its premises. There is no protection against access to private material (e.g. personal mobile phones) or confidential information (e.g. medical file, appeals procedures) other than, in some specific cases, prior
authorisation of the Data Protection Office. Such prior authorisation can be dispensed with if this would risk to “jeopardise the investigation”. The Circular expressly foresees access to evidence located outside the Office premises (Art. 16(9)). It is stipulated that for this the investigate unit “must abide by all the applicable provisions of local law or (sic!) obtain prior written permission from the individual concerned”. In view of the duty to co-operate fully (see above), it would seem that such written permission cannot be refused. Hence it would seem that investigators appointed by the EPO can search and size private property without regard of national law.

D. INSUFFICIENT LEVEL OF PROOF

The results of the fact-finding of the investigative unit form the basis for further decisions, ultimately taken by the President. If the investigative unit finds that fraud, misconduct or harassment has occurred, this could lead to disciplinary proceedings and ultimately dismissal. According to Art. 18(4)(ii), the investigative unit will base its conclusions “on a preponderance of the evidence”, i.e. a merely greater than 50% likelihood that fraud, misconduct or harassment has occurred. This is an unacceptably low level of proof given the potentially serious consequences.

E. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

According to Article 18(7) “the subject of an investigation shall receive a copy of the report if and when, on the basis of the report, disciplinary proceedings are initiated”, meaning that an investigative report on a person may exist without his or her knowledge of the contents. This would not seem acceptable in any European state in 2013.

F. NO LEGAL ASSISTANCE DURING HEARINGS

The subject of an investigation does not have the right of legal assistance of his own choosing (e.g. from outside the office) during hearings. This is in contradiction to article 6 paragraph 3(c) of the ECHM.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND REQUEST

The CSC is of the opinion that the Guidelines for Investigations confer excessive powers to the President of the EPO and the Investigative Unit without providing the corresponding guarantees and safeguards for staff as normally provided by national law in the EPO Member States.

The CSC doubts whether the Guidelines as they currently stand are in accordance with Art. 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

The CSC also doubts whether the Guidelines as they currently stand are in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

[...]

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

[...]

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

The CSC therefore requests an independent legal evaluation of Circulars 341 and 342 of to answer the following questions:

(a) are Circulars 341 and 342 in compliance with international human rights conventions, and

(b) do Circulars 341 and 342 afford staff of the EPO a level of protection against arbitrary interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence that is equivalent to that provided in the EPO Member States?

The Central Staff Committee

As anyone who has read through the above text can certainly see, this is quite a coup d’état by Benoît Battistelli. It may seem unthinkable that he can get away with it, but he did. Somehow he did.

“The Council seems to have ignored these submissions,” the source told us, “because there is no available record of any response having been made.”

This is also the response received after Transparency International was called to intervene, whereupon it wrote to Jesper Kongstad (definitely not a popular person inside the EPO) and never received a response thereafter (that was before the doors revolved, perhaps even twice).

“In part III we are planning to look deeper into the EPO and step into the chambers of the notorious I.U.”“The bottom line here,” explained our source, “is that due to the apparent inaction of the Administrative Council, the President has succeeded in single-handedly imposing on the EPO a system which places unlimited power into his own hands and there is no effective system of checks and balances to prevent abuse.

“This situation is contrary to the spirit of the European Patent Convention which envisaged a European Patent Organisation based on the classical tripartite “separation of powers” model à la Montesquieu.

“From the minutes of the Diplomatic Conferences which led to the signing of the Convention in its final form in 1973, it its clear that the drafters envisaged a tripartite system consisting of a legislative body (the Administrative Council), an executive body (the Office administration headed by the President) and a judicial or quasi-judicial body (the Boards of Appeal).

“The tripartite model of governance doesn’t appear to be to the liking of the current President whose preference seems to be for a more centralised autocratic system.

“The current dysfunctional developments in EPO governance were already commented upon by a number of external observers back in December 2014. For example, the German patent attorney Thorsten Bausch wrote an article entitled “Que le pouvoir arrête le pouvoir – >From Montesquieu to Battistelli” dealing with the perceived breach of the principle of the separation of powers by the President.

“Further critical observations in a similar vein have been made recently by Siegfried Broß, a retired judge of the German Federal Constitutional Court.

“The most puzzling aspect of the current situation is the role of the Administrative Council. It is unclear why they have permitted such an unfettered concentration of power in the hands of the EPO President contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the EPC. Either they understand what is going on and are actively colluding in it or else the President has been very successful in pulling the wool over their eyes. Whatever the truth of the matter may be, it is very difficult to avoid the impression that the Administrative Council is failing to fulfill its institutional role as envisaged by the drafters of the EPC.”

In part III we are planning to look deeper into the EPO and step into the chambers of the notorious I.U. Therein we may find reasonably good explanations for at least some of the many suicides (casualties of war, namely Battistelli’s war on dissent or perceived opponents).

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

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

What Else is New


  1. Patent Lawyers' Media Comes to Grips With the End of Software Patents

    The reality of the matter is grim for software patents and the patent microcosm, 'borrowing' the media as usual, tries to give false hopes by insinuating that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may overturn Alice quite soon



  2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Foes Manipulate the Facts to Belittle the Impact of PTAB

    In an effort to sabotage PTAB with its inter partes reviews the patent microcosm is organising one-sided events that slam PTAB's legitimacy and misrepresent statistics



  3. Links 21/11/2017: LibreELEC (Krypton) v8.2.1 MR, Mesa 17.3.0 RC5

    Links for the day



  4. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) Are Essential in an Age When One Can Get Sued for Merely Mocking a Patent

    The battle over the right to criticise particular patents has gotten very real and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fought it until the end; this is why we need granted patents to be criticised upon petitions too (and often invalidated as a result)



  5. Chinese Patent Policy Continues to Mimic All the Worst Elements of the American System

    China is becoming what the United States used to be in terms of patents, whereas the American system is adopting saner patent policies that foster real innovation whilst curtailing mass litigation



  6. Links 20/11/2017: Why GNU/Linux is Better Than Windows, Another Linus Torvalds Rant

    Links for the day



  7. “US Inventor” is a “Bucket of Deplorables” Not Worthy of Media Coverage

    Jan Wolfe of Reuters treats a fringe group called “US Inventor” as though it's a conservative voice rather than a bunch of patent extremists pretending to be inventors



  8. Team Battistelli's Attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal Predate the Illegal Sanctions Against a Judge

    A walk back along memory lane reveals that Battistelli has, all along, suppressed and marginalised DG3 members, in order to cement total control over the entire Organisation, not just the Office



  9. PTAB is Safe, the Patent Extremists Just Try to Scandalise It Out of Sheer Desperation

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which gave powers to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes reviews (IPRs), has no imminent threats, not potent ones anyway



  10. Update on the EPO's Crackdown on the Boards of Appeal

    Demand of 35% increases from the boards serves to show that Battistelli now does to the 'independent' judges what he already did to examiners at the Office



  11. The Lobbyists Are Trying to Subvert US Law in Favour of Patent Predators

    Mingorance, Kappos, Underweiser and other lobbyists for the software patents agenda (paid by firms like Microsoft and IBM) keep trying to undo progress, notably the bans on software patents



  12. Patent Trolls Based in East Texas Are Affected Very Critically by TC Heartland

    The latest situation in Texas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in particular), which according to new analyses is the target of legal scrutiny for the 'loopholes' it provided to patent trolls in search of easy legal battles



  13. Alice Remains a Strong Precedential Decision and the Media Has Turned Against Software Patents

    The momentum against the scourge of software patents and the desperation among patent 'professionals' (people who don't create/develop/invent) is growing



  14. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  15. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  16. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  17. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  18. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  19. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  20. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  21. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  22. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  23. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  24. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  25. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  26. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  27. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  28. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  29. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)



  30. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts