07.06.17
Gemini version available ♊︎Elżbieta Bieńkowska Cares More About the Unitary Patent Coup D’état (Which She Encourages) Than She Cares About the Rule of Law and People’s Lives
Systematic apathy has cemented the monarchy of Team Battistelli
Elżbieta Bieńkowska – Photo by Adam Nurkiewicz, CC BY-SA 3.0
Summary: Bieńkowska, a career climber, continues to basically stonewall and prevent an intervention by the Commission, even though the EPO violates laws and violates the very treaty on which it is based
A EUROPEAN politician, Marc Tarabella, has long shown and expressed his concerns about the situation at the EPO. As covered here earlier this year, he brought up the subject again and SUEPO has this update linking to the official response from Elżbieta Bieńkowska, who is not new to this. We previously took note of her correspondence and were also appalled by her UPC jingoism. Bieńkowska is one of those many reminders that for politicians to climb up to the top (political ladder/pay grade) they need to play along with nefarious schemes rather than guard against these. By failing to take action — repeatedly in fact — she has reaffirmed the view that she is a protector/facilitator of the Battistelli regime. Here is her latest response (from last week):
Parliamentary questions
30 June 2017
E-002338/2017Answer given by Ms Bieńkowska on behalf of the Commission
The European Patent Office (EPO) is an independent international organisation without any organic link with the EU per se. The Administrative Council, composed of representatives of its 38 contracting states, supervises the activities of the EPO and its President.
As noted by the Honourable Member, the Commission has observer status at the Administrative Council; however, it is not involved when personnel, disciplinary, appointments and other human resources matters are being discussed, and thus does not have competence to directly intervene in Administrative Council considerations on these matters.
Nevertheless, given the EPO’s upcoming role in the administration of the unitary patent, the Commission has a direct interest in the social situation in the EPO, and notably its respect for fundamental social rights and serene social dialogue. In that context, it was positive that, at the last meeting of the Administrative Council on 15-16 March 2017, the President’s presentation of the annual activity report of the Office drew specific attention to efforts underway since 2016 to improve the social situation in the EPO(1).
In addition, the EPO’s social agenda in 2017 is focusing on continuing to enhance social dialogue, notably by more directly including staff at various stages of projects by means of focus groups.
The Commission hopes that these initiatives will contribute to fostering a culture of social dialogue and a more positive social climate generally at the EPO. To this end, it will continue to urge the Organisation, and in particular, the EU Member States in its membership, to ensure true and balanced social dialogue in the EPO.
_________
(1) Details of the annual report are available at: http://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics/annual-report/2016.html
The UPC is not desirable, it is not constitutional, and it’s unlikely to happen. For Bieńkowska, a longtime pusher of the UPC, to use the UPC as some sort of excuse for attempting to calm things down (lip service) rather than resolve things says a lot about her ambitions as a politician. Bieńkowska does not seem to care about people as much as she cares about the business interests of massive multinationals and their law firms. This, in turn, does not bode well for the Commission and the Union. No oversight even when it’s desperately needed? Nobody left to turn to, not even ILO? █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
One of those... said,
July 7, 2017 at 12:19 pm
LOL….
As if Mr. President would allow any Staff Reps to participate in the “focus groups”. But afterwards he can rush aside the Staff Reps comments as “this is the result of the focus group, where staff participated. You have no right to question the results!”
It’s again something that will transport nice words into the yearly reports, but have absolutely no effect towards social dialogue. It’s just a part of “divide and conquer”, as he devides the staff by pitching them against each other in focus groups, whre his experts have a vast majority, explain complex contents to laymen, steer the discussions, ignore and real input, and get the result he envisioned beforehand.
There are so many things done which will give nice words in the yearly reports, but when scrutinizing how it’s done in detail shows all signs of being fig leaves.
One of those... Reply:
July 7th, 2017 at 12:20 pm
… ooops… I meant “Afterwards he can brush aside…”
Dr. Roy Schestowitz said,
July 7, 2017 at 1:15 pm
“social dialogue.”
“social democracy.”
Just pick euphemisms for reports…