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

02.18.16

Open Letter Explains Why Disciplinary Committees at the EPO Have Become a Sham Under Battistelli’s Regime

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Fair trial

Summary: Dysfunctions in the EPO’s disciplinary procedures are explained in a 5-page letter, which emphasises tyrannical tendencies in the Battistelli-led EPO

THE EPO‘s management has been ignoring the recommendations of the disciplinary committees when it fired two representatives and downgraded another. This is widely known by now and even European politicians have spoken against this injustice. Last week the following open letter was circulated and now is a good time to show it publicly to everyone. We highlight some bits of interest (in yellow) for those who want to read through the text quickly.

OPEN LETTER TO ALL STAFF

Dysfunctions in the EPO’s disciplinary procedures

Dear Colleagues,

The independence of the Disciplinary Committee (DC) and its members is an essential prerequisite for a just and fair trial, not only for the individuals facing grave accusations, but also for confidence in the EPO as a whole. It is neither the CSC’s role nor its intention to interfere with this independence, let alone issue instructions to the DC. However it is the CSC’s duty to comment on and if necessary propose actions that favour the smooth running of statutory bodies, all in the best interests of staff. It is in this context and taking into consideration that six disciplinary sanctions have been taken against staff representatives consecutively over a very short period of time, the CSC believes it is urgent to “Pause, Reflect, (Re)connect”, that is to learn from past events.

As highlighted in a letter dated 12 November 2014, the EPO no longer has a properly functioning disciplinary procedure, a claim that was reiterated in an open letter to the AC Chairman, dated 4 March 2015.

I – Nominations to the DC: loyalty vs. independence

A DC is a statutory body comprising two members appointed by the President and two by the CSC, drawn at random from a pool of possible candidates.

The President appoints the chairpersons of the DC. Until 2013 all DC chairs were chosen from the DG3 Boards of Appeal, whose independence from the President is guaranteed by the EPC. He stopped this long-standing tradition in 20141.

Following the introduction of the new career system, the EPO President decided that the CSC may no longer nominate members of DG3 to DC procedures involving staff in job groups 2 and 3. Since it remains a requirement under Article 98(4) ServRegs that DC members shall not be of a lower job group than that of the accused, this does not leave the CSC any other option than to select their nominees from the few willing managers and directors employed in those groups2.
_______
1 CSC members have legally challenged this change. Internal appeals are pending.
2 The President has also repeatedly interfered with CSC nominations: for example, the nominations of the CSC for 2015 and 2016 were disregarded (see the nominations retained by the President versus the CSC 2015 nomination letter).


In stark contrast, the President almost exclusively nominates Directors and Principal Directors as members for all job groups whereas he should in principle nominate non-managers for procedures in job groups 4 to 6 to more faithfully reflect the staff demography. As a result, the members appointed by the President drawn from the list of potential nominees for a particular case will always be managers, except if the defendant is in job group 6.

Besides being an explicit requirement written in the job description of all EPO staff members, loyalty (obedience) is to be expected of today’s management. The present Administration has demonstrated on several occasions that this obligation applies in particular for managers and those taking actions that are perceived to be disloyal should expect to be punished severely.

Further, since senior managers nominated by the President are often employed under some form of renewable contract (where continuation may depend on Presidential approval), staff may doubt that they can act fully independently in performing their function as DC members.

The Office has endorsed a structure that the European Court of Human Rights found objectionable3: the convening officer (President) appoints the court (is their superior officer) and acts also as the confirming officer (President). Such a DC framework no longer meets the requirements that the ECHR consider necessary for a fair procedure4.

II – DC recommendations systematically ignored

After Aurélien Pétiaud, Michael Lund and Els Hardon (1), now it is the turn for Malika Weaver, Ion Brumme and again Els Hardon (2) to be severely sanctioned for activities carried out in their capacity as staff representatives, union officials and/or CSC appointees.

In his Communiqué No.2, the President insists that the DC recommendations were all “unanimous”, “justifying high sanctions, including dismissal”, which in our opinion (mis)leads the uninformed reader to believe that he is merely following the DC recommendations. This is not the reality – in most cases the DC concluded that many of the serious allegations could not be founded in facts.

The harsh reality is that in all six (!) cases, the President has effectively disregarded the unanimous DC recommendation and decided upon sanctions (up to immediate dismissal with reduction of pension) that are far more severe than the recommendations of the DC. Indeed, in cases where the DC rejected as unsupported allegations made against staff representatives, the President
_______
3 see case Findlay vs United Kingdom or a summary why such a model is unfair
4 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf


nevertheless seems to have ignored this and based his judgement and decision on such allegations being proven.

The CSC is well aware that the DC is not responsible for the President’s final decision itself. We assume the DC will have attempted to weigh diligently all the available facts and then assess the consequences of their recommendation. In some cases they may even have sought to find prudent compromises to reduce sanctions in case of doubt. Unfortunately, not only has the President chosen to cherry-pick the harshest of the recommendations, he has in fact gone much further than any of them, applying blatantly disproportionate sanctions with dramatic consequences for the individuals themselves.

III – Six Staff Representatives sanctioned in short lapse of time

Because of the quite extraordinary aggressive attitude presently shown by senior management and in fear of further reprisals, the concerned individuals do not wish to publish more specific, personal information related to their disciplinary procedures. We can, however, provide you with the following insights into their individual predicaments:

  • Not only is Mr Brumme fired from the EPO with immediate effect, but the normal daily life of his newly established family will be disrupted and put under enormous strain in the future.

    If any staff member had been found guilty of very serious charges in a fair trial, such sanctions and their consequences might be understandable. However, this is certainly not the case here: indeed, it appears that it is not the original charges that Mr Brumme has been accused of that are the basis for the sanction. Rather, it is the fact that he denied them publicly, i.e. defended himself against any wrongdoings, that was apparently considered to severely breach “the confidentiality obligation” of the procedure.

    Firstly, it should be remembered that confidentiality is primarily meant to protect the accused staff member – who is presumed innocent until proven guilty – and not to be used to render him guilty for an alleged procedural error. We also note that this charge was only added during the course of the procedure. Last but not least, it should be remembered that as an elected staff representative, Mr Brumme has a mandate from staff to act on their behalf. Hence his informing staff on any issues in relation with his mandate and personal integrity is not only legal, it is a moral and professional obligation for all Staff Representatives towards their constituency.

    It is a sad outcome that today, at 41 years of age, Mr Brumme faces being an outcast. How can ruining a staff member’s life be seen as a “justified and proportionate” sanction, particularly for a staff representative simply defending himself in “public” (actually EPO internally) from an attack on both his functions and his integrity?


  • Similarly, Ms Hardon sees her pension, a deferred remuneration accumulated after many years of active work in the EPO, arbitrarily reduced by 20%. This is a very rare sanction that is normally reserved for extreme cases where individuals have been convicted of the most serious crimes and felonies like corruption or gross misconduct. How can such a sanction be “justified and proportionate” in her case?

IV – No particular protection for staff and union representatives in the EPO

In most European countries, and certainly in France and Germany, staff and union representatives enjoy particular protection and external instances5 other than their employer are in place to decide what sanctions are appropriate to be applied against them. The employer cannot simply publicly declare that the cases “relate to personal failures of the employees”, impose heavy sanctions and de facto disregard “the fact that the employees involved are staff representatives who should enjoy a higher level of protection and freedom of expression, having in mind their particular duties.”6

V – The work of the DC has changed in the new world of “political trials”

The EPO “culture” has changed to such an extent that the disciplinary procedures seems to have mutated into a fully conscious and demonstrative policy of the President to apply the most ruthless and excessive sanctions, presumably with the intention of having an oppressive, intimidating effect on all staff. In this context, such disciplinary procedures can be seen as “political trials”.

In this sense, the CSC makes the following observations:

  • The President seems to be instrumentalising the DC: the recommendations are represented in a biased manner to give the impression that there is unanimous support for the sanctions taken. At the same time, the statutory confidentiality clause is abused to prevent any third party from knowing the findings of the DC and thereby removing transparency from the procedure.
  • Arbitrariness and abuse of power: even though the DC may strive to write a fair, balanced and coherent recommendation reflecting the established facts and taking into consideration any doubts or uncertainties, only parts of a recommendation are being cherry-picked or misrepresented, presumably to arrive at a desired outcome. However, in the absence of any internal review and without any effective recourse to fair and timely legal remedies, the President can take any decision he likes with virtually total impunity.

_______
5 Inspection du Travail in France and Betriebsrat / Arbeitsgericht in Germany
6 «Les salariés investis de fonctions représentatives par voie de désignation ou d’élection bénéficient, en cette qualité, d’un statut protecteur.», Article 48 in the «rapport Badinter» on “THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF LABOR LAW”, January 2016


  • The DC is rapidly becoming an integral part of political “show trials”, especially in cases against staff / union representatives: in all (6 out of 6!) cases, the accusations appear to be politically motivated, as were the expected outcome of the procedure. The DC exhibits traits of a reincarnation of the 17th Century Star Chamber7.

The above dysfunctions are equally valid for the Internal Appeal Committee8 where no members are at present appointed by the CSC. Both bodies are equally hazardous for not only their nominated members, but also individual staff members involved and Staff at large.

VI – Lack of judicial review in a reasonable time frame

In view of the flaws in the disciplinary procedures, a genuine independent judicial review is all the more essential. However, the ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) chokes under a workload mainly caused by the EPO and it does not foresee any accelerated procedure for considering cases with sanctions as heavy as dismissal, let alone issuing any form of injunction. Instead, the cases have to wait their turn, which currently will result in delays of several years before judgement. Should the ILOAT persist in refusing to fast track such cases, then the national courts in the member states should declare themselves exceptionally competent, lift the immunity of the Office and review themselves the decisions of the President.

The Central Staff Committee
_______
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
8 Please note the Board of Auditors’ review of the Internal Appeals procedure in CA/20/15 & CA/21/15: according to these studies, the President does not follow recommendations of his own Appeals Committee and (almost) systematically rules against staff. The ILO-AT is ill-equipped to act as a trial court (Judgment No. 3291). “There is no social peace without access to Justice”. (for more details please refer to the CSC report on the EPO justice)

Things are heating up right now and we urge anyone who has further details to contact us securely. The more the public knows, the bigger the trouble EPO tyranny will face.

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. Battistelli and Topić Lose Their Bogus 'Case' Against Judge Corcoran After They Defamed Him and Ruined His Career/Life

    The SLAPP action against Judge Patrick Corcoran, who has so far won all cases involving the EPO, is finally dismissed in Germany; what remains is an ugly legacy at the EPO, wherein everyone bold enough to say something about corruption at the top is having his or her life — not just career — destroyed



  2. Even Media of the Patent Microcosm Mentions the Decline in Quality of Patents at the EPO, Based on Its Very Own Stakeholders, While IAM Ignores the News

    The whole world basically accepts, based on patent examiners as well as those whom they interact with (patent agents), that patent quality at the EPO has sunk; but the EPO and IAM continue to vigorously deny that as it threatens some people's nefarious agenda



  3. Links 20/6/2018: Qt 5.11.1, Oracle Solaris 11.3 SRU 33, HHVM 3.27.0, Microsoft Helping ICE

    Links for the day



  4. Patent Extremists Are Unable to Find Federal Circuit Cases That Help Them Mislead on Alice

    Patent extremists prefer talking about Mayo but not Alice when it comes to 35 U.S.C. § 101; Broadcom is meanwhile going on a 'fishing expedition', looking to profit from patents by calling for embargo through the ITC



  5. What Use Are 10 Million Patents That Are of Low Quality in a Patent Office Controlled by the Patent 'Industry'?

    The patent maximalists are celebrating overgranting; the USPTO, failing to heed the warning from patent courts, continues issuing far too many patents and a new paper from Mark Lemley and Robin Feldman offers a dose of sobering reality



  6. The Eastern District of Texas is Where Asian Companies/Patents/Trolls Still Go After TC Heartland

    Proxies of Longhorn IP and KAIST (Katana Silicon Technologies LLC and KAIST IP US LLC, respectively) roam Texas in pursuit of money of out nothing but patents and aggressive litigation; there's also a Microsoft connection



  7. EPO Insiders Correct the Record of Benoît Battistelli’s Tyranny and Abuse of Law: “Legal Harassment and Retaliation”

    Battistelli’s record, as per EPO-FLIER 37, is a lot worse than the Office cares to tell stakeholders, who are already complaining about decline in patent quality



  8. Articles About a Unitary Patent System Are Lies and Marketing From Law Firms With 'Lawsuits Lust'

    Team UPC has grown louder with its lobbying efforts this past week; the same lies are being repeated without much of a challenge and press ownership plays a role in that



  9. The Decline in Patent Quality at the EPO Causes Frivolous Lawsuits That Only Lawyers Profit From

    The European Patent Office (EPO) will continue granting low-quality European Patents under the leadership of the Battistelli-'nominated' Frenchman, António Campinos; this is bad news for science and technology as that quite likely means a lot more lawsuits without merit (which only lawyers profit from)



  10. What Battistelli's Workers Think of His Latest EPO Propaganda

    "Modernising the EPO" is what Battistelli calls a plethora of human rights abuses and corruption



  11. Links 19/6/2018: Total War: WARHAMMER II Confirmed for GNU/Linux, DragonFlyBSD 5.2.2 Released

    Links for the day



  12. More Media Reports About Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    What the media is saying about the letter from Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner whilst EPO communications shift attention to shallow puff pieces about how wonderful Benoît Battistelli is



  13. Beware Team UPC's Biggest Two Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Claims that a Unified Patent Court (UPC) will commence next year are nothing but a fantasy of the Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli, who keeps telling lies to French media (some of which he passes EPO money to, just like he passes EPO money to his other employer)



  14. Diversity at the EPO

    Two decades of EPO with 16-17 years under the control of French Presidents (and nowadays predominantly French management in general with Inventor Award held in France almost half the time) is "diversity at the EPO"



  15. Orrin Hatch, Sponsored the Most by the Pharmaceutical Industry, Tries to Make Its Patents Immune From Scrutiny (PTAB)

    Orrin Hatch is the latest example of laws being up for sale, i.e. companies can 'buy' politicians to act as their 'couriers' and pass laws for them, including laws pertaining to patents



  16. Links 17/6/2018: Linux 4.18 RC1 and Deepin 15.6 Released

    Links for the day



  17. To Keep the Patent System Alive and Going Practitioners Will Have to Accept Compromises on Scope Being Narrowed

    35 U.S.C. § 101 still squashes a lot of software patents, reducing confidence in US patents; the only way to correct this is to reduce patent filings and file fewer lawsuits, judging their merit in advance based on precedents from higher courts



  18. The Affairs of the USPTO Have Turned Into Somewhat of a Battle Against the Courts, Which Are Simply Applying the Law to Invalidate US Patents

    The struggle between law, public interest, and the Cult of Patents (which only ever celebrates more patents and lawsuits) as observed in the midst of recent events in the United States



  19. Patent Marketing Disguised as Patent 'Advice'

    The meta-industry which profits from patents and lawsuits claims that it's guiding us and pursuing innovation, but in reality its sole goal is enriching itself, even if that means holding science back



  20. Microsoft is Still 'Cybermobbing' Its Competition Using Patent Trolls Such as Finjan

    In the "cybersecurity" space, a sub-domain where many software patents have been granted by the US patent office, the patent extortion by Microsoft-connected trolls (and Microsoft's 'protection' racket) seems to carry on; but Microsoft continues to insist that it has changed its ways



  21. Links 16/6/2018: LiMux Story, Okta Openwashing and More

    Links for the day



  22. The EPO's Response to the Open Letter About Decline in Patent Quality as the Latest Example of Arrogance and Resistance to Facts, Truth

    Sidestepping the existential crisis of the EPO (running out of work and issuing many questionable patents with expectation of impending layoffs), the PR people at the Office choose a facts-denying, face-saving 'damage control' strategy while staff speaks out, wholeheartedly agreeing with concerned stakeholders



  23. In the United States the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Which Assures Patent Quality, is Still Being Smeared by Law Firms That Profit From Patent Maximalism, Lawsuits

    Auditory roles which help ascertain high quality of patents (or invalidate low-quality patents, at least those pointed out by petitions) are being smeared, demonised as "death squads" and worked around using dirty tricks that are widely described as "scams"



  24. The 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI) Hype, Propped Up by Events of the European Patent Office (EPO), is Infectious and It Threatens Patent Quality Worldwide

    Having spread surrogate terms like “4IR” (somewhat of a 'mask' for software patents, by the EPO's own admission in the Gazette), the EPO continues with several more terms like “ICT” and now we’re grappling with terms like “AI”, which the media endlessly perpetuates these days (in relation to patents it de facto means little more than "clever algorithms")



  25. Links 15/6/2018: HP Chromebook X2 With GNU/Linux Software, Apple Admits and Closes a Back Door ('Loophole')

    Links for the day



  26. The '4iP Council' is a Megaphone of Team UPC and Team Battistelli at the EPO

    The EPO keeps demonstrating lack of interest in genuine patent quality (it uses buzzwords to compensate for deviation from the EPC and replaces humans with shoddy translators); it is being aided by law firms which work for patent trolls and think tanks that propel their interests



  27. Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner Find the Courage to Express Concerns About Battistelli's Ugly Legacy and Low Patent Quality

    The astounding levels of abuse at the EPO have caused some of the EPO's biggest stakeholders to speak out and lash out, condemning the Office for mismanagement amongst other things



  28. IAM Concludes Its Latest Anti-§ 101 Think Tank, Featuring Crooked Benoît Battistelli

    The attack on 35 U.S.C. § 101, which invalidates most if not all software patents, as seen through the lens of a Battistelli- and Iancu-led lobbying event (set up by IAM)



  29. Google Gets Told Off -- Even by the Typically Supportive EFF and TechDirt -- Over Patenting of Software

    The EFF's Daniel Nazer, as well as TechDirt's founder Mike Masnick, won't tolerate Google's misuse of Jarek Duda's work; the USPTO should generally reject all applications for software patents -- something which a former Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO seems to be accepting now (that such patents have no potency after Alice)



  30. From the Eastern District of Texas to Delaware, US Patent Litigation is (Overall) Still Declining

    Patent disputes/conflicts are increasingly being settled outside the courts and patents that aren't really potent/eligible are being eliminated or never brought forth at all


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