03.31.17
Gemini version available ♊︎Culpability for EPO Injustice in the Administrative Council Chaired by Battistelli’s Protector, Jesper Kongstad
Summary: The EPO, whose innate nature or goal was to serve (patent) justice, quickly became a world-renowned example of gross injustice, not only on patents but also towards its own employees and even judges who are in principle independent
YESTERDAY evening we published this leak which showed the poetic injustice against a judge (we never missed the irony of this scenario). The EPO‘s management is abusive enough to have “miscarriage of justice” even against judges. Anywhere else it’s unheard of, except perhaps in Turkey and in the US after Trump’s inauguration. Saying the truth about justice is some kind of a (thought) crime now; upholding the law is an offense. What has the EPO sunk to? There is not even separation of powers anymore.
Not too long after we had leaked the document someone wrote: “To those of your wondering what happens with the for TWO years shamefully suspended judge…”
“Torture by suspension seems legal at the EPO,” another person alleged. To quote:
After almost two and a half years of disciplinary proceedings and three decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal against its requests, the AC allegedly is still not in a position to take a final decision on the suspension of the suspected judge, failing “the establishment of all relevant facts”:
http://techrights.org/2017/03/30/guilty-until-proven-innocent/
Torture by suspension seems legal at the EPO.
Today (this morning) two more comments showed up and at least one of them is buried deep inside a very old thread, so we reproduce it below.
“AC has now effectively “rewarded” the President for his interference,” the following comment says:
So the AC has decided that the fate of the suspended judge “would depend upon the establishment of all relevant facts”. But how are those facts going to be established if the President keeps preventing the Enlarged Board of Appeal from establishing them?
In essence, the sole effect achieved by the President’s interference in the “judicial” proceedings is the advancement of his agenda: to prevent independent scrutiny of the “facts” upon which the allegations against the suspended judge are allegedly based (and the manner in which those “facts” were obtained); and to prolong the suspension without (fair) trial.
All this means is that, in addition to failing to sanction the President for his unwarranted interference in the judicial proceedings, the AC has now effectively “rewarded” the President for his interference.
It looks like the AC, following in the President’s footsteps, is effectively saying farewell to the rule of law. It is also confirming that the Enlarged Board of Appeal was right to fear that the AC would side with the President… meaning that the President’s thinly-veiled threats to the Enlarged Board really were an unforgivable attempt to interfere with the independence of the judiciary.
Presumably a majority of representatives to the AC agreed with the decision not to terminate the disciplinary proceedings against the suspended judge (or not to at least reinstate him until the facts can be independently established). And if a majority was required for the AC to reach such a heinous decision, what does this say about the current state of that supervisory authority? Not only should every last one of the representatives that supported this decision be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but we need to know who they are… so that we can start asking them some questions.
Another comment correctly points out that the EPO “slandered his name publicly as Nazi (despite not having delivered any proof, as noted by the eBoA).”
The accused judge ought to sue the EPO for slander, but the EPO enjoys immunity. See what the EPO can get away with? Here is the full comment:
And since the DG3 member has no influence on the timing of the steps of the procedure, he has no chance to get the eBoA to actually speak him free.
He can go nowhere, as national judges “have no jurisdiction”, the internal procedure is “still running” (ILOAT will decline any judgement), the AC and the president are not willing to proceed the procedure, and the eBoA cannot do anything out of its own volition, as there is no case before the eBoA currently.
Another perfect example of “the internal remedies available to staff are sufficient, therefore national judges need to uphold the immunity and have no jurisdiction”.
But then, there’s “only one” “human” affected, who is overpaid anyway.
Really wondering why the leftish anti-Europe papers are not picking up on cases like this, but then the DG3 member is not allowed to defend himself publicly, while the office slandered his name publicly as Nazi (despite not having delivered any proof, as noted by the eBoA).
I wonder how anyone can think the EPO and its employees do follow the EPC if its management and supervising organ are so obviously violating the EPC again and again.
Despite all the words in favour of a strong Europe, someone is set on destroying it from within. The fallour in the public opinion will strengthen the anti-Europe sentiments, which should not be in the interest of the EPO.
Yesterday we received the following comment which suggests time alone is unlikely to heal the wounds. Battistelli is not intending to step down (probably more true now that the UPC is stuck again). Here is what the comment said:
This is really interesting. It is quite possible, even probable, that Battistelli is planning to stay a lot longer than 2018. The Council thinks he will go, but they have been fooled before and Battistelli knows he can fool them again.
That would also explain that “strange” structure that is planned to replace Minnoye. Here again, the council thinks it is a temporary measure but that is a classical trick which is taught at the ENA: “temporary arrangements are easier to negotiate and often last longer”.
This has implications for SUEPO (and techrights…) as well.
What happens at the EPO is a total catastrophe; the only greater catastrophe is German media being so reluctant or unwilling to cover it. In the next post we’ll hypothesise why that might be (clue: think Texas). █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA