Exclusive: New Leaked Document Shows Board 28 Surprised Battistelli and Had a Long Unilateral Argument With Him Over Union-Busting (‘Disciplinary Cases’), Called It a “Crisis”
Helping and serving to refute some of the lies Battistelli has told the media as of late
In their own words…
Summary: A truly revealing leaked document (aged one week) shows that there is a deep disagreement between the Board and the President (for now) of the EPO
BOARD 28 is secretive, but sooner or later — just as in the case of TPP and TTIP or ACTA — we get lucky enough to see what’s inside. The EPO‘s management has a lot to hide, but it’s not hiding it too well (except perhaps Battistelli’s ultra-secret contract). One concise summary was published here recently in English and in Spanish. An additional document, released a week ago as well (but confidential nonetheless), has landed on our lap and here it is. Our remarks on the text can be found below.
70th meeting of the
BOARD OF THE
Munich, 2 February 2016
SUBMITTED BY: Council Secretariat
ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for information)
This document has been issued in electronic form only.
1. The Board of the Administrative Council (“the Board”) held its 70th meeting in Munich on 2 February 2016, with Mr Kongstad in the chair
Mr Grossenbacher had in formed the Chairman that he was not able to attend.
2. The Board adopted the provisional agenda set out in B28/1/16 e, with the addition of a new item on the recent disciplinary cases.
3. The Board focused on the disciplinary cases. An in-depth discussion shows controversial and sometimes conflicting views between the Board members and the President on both the legal elements and the political background. The social dialogue has clearly been brought to a halt, and the matters under examination are to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency. The Board qualified the situation as a crisis – a view challenged by the President.
4. The Board made proposals in order to assist the President in his handling of the situation. Mechanisms were proposed in order to prepare the next B28 meeting, and an informal meeting with the President was decided.
5. Due to time constraints, the Board decided to postpone the other items on the agenda to its next meeting.
6. On the issue of the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal, Mr Battistelli stressed that the B28 should not conduct hearings of administrative units of the Office — institutional aspects are here of utmost importance. In view of this position of the President, the Board agreed to invite, jointly with the President, some representatives of the BoA for an exchange of views ahead of its next meeting.
Grossenbacher was absent (he is often seen as a defender of Battistelli, as we explained before). The Board added “a new item on the recent disciplinary cases” by essentially changing the agenda that was expected by one like Battistelli (unpleasant surprise to him for sure, but he didn’t storm out in anger like earlier this week). “The Board focused on the disciplinary cases,” so this is what took the lion’s share of the time and basically prevented much of the rest of the agenda from being reached at all. They disagreed on “both the legal elements and the political background” and there is no indication of anyone in the Board siding with Battistelli.
“They disagreed on “both the legal elements and the political background” and there is no indication of anyone in the Board siding with Battistelli.”“The social dialogue has clearly been brought to a halt,” it says, so clearly they too realise that the whole ‘union recognition’ was nonsensical theatre.
The above adds that “the matters under examination are to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency.”
“The Board qualified the situation as a crisis,” which probably refutes what Battistelli has been telling the media since then. This is a “view challenged by the President,” so he clearly chooses to live in a world of his own.
“The above adds that “the matters under examination are to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency.””It should be noted that “an informal meeting with the President was decided.” We don’t know the date yet (if any was agree on already).
The crisis is so big in fact that “the Board decided to postpone the other items on the agenda to its next meeting.” The item added to the agenda at the 90th minute was treated as so urgent that everything else got thrown aside. And Battistelli still insists that everything is under control? Who is he kidding?
“And Battistelli still insists that everything is under control?”The last item above speaks of the Boards of Appeal and says they’ll invite “some representatives of the BoA for an exchange of views ahead of its next meeting.”
Maybe they should invite that judge whom Battistelli illegally suspended (on 'house ban') and learn from that judge about Željko Topić, in case they don’t know enough already (everyone seems to be aware by now), whereupon they may finally get down to the core of many of these issues that keep escalating. █