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

10.22.17

The Difference Between Alain Pompidou and Benoît Battistelli as EPO President

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Letter from Pompidou

Summary: The different approaches adopted by Pompidou and Battistelli; one pursued amicable mediation and training, whereas the other resorted to vindicative witch-hunts, kangaroo courts, and a culture of terror which resulted in many suicides (nearly seven)

THE EPO is nowadays being managed by a right-wing politician. It has been the case for about 7 years and the next President will be an ex-banker (earlier this morning we finished a series about that). Remember that the EPO, at its core, should be about science and technology. Scientists tend to be more professional and compassionate than ENA graduates. They also better understand scientists (such as examiners). Pompidou is the adopted son of Georges Pompidou, former President of France, but he is also former professor of histology, embryology and cytogenetics, according to Wikipedia. António Campinos too is the son of a politician (Joaquim Jorge de Pinho Campinos), but he is not a scientist.

The redacted mail at the top shows us how President Pompidou dealt with conflict — a sharp contrast to how Battistelli handles things.

The following 3-page document from 3 years ago shows how the Central Staff Committee (not SUEPO) viewed Battistelli’s approach:

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité central du Personnel

12.11.2014
sc14265cp – 0.2.1/5.1/6.1

Disciplinary Committee

Introduction

The Disciplinary Committee is a statutory body set up under the EPO Service Regulations. The Committee has to be consulted if the President intends to impose a serious disciplinary measure against a staff member1 or wishes to dismiss a staff member for poor performance.

As with all such bodies at the Office (the GAC – now GCC – the Medical Committee, the Internal Appeals Committee, the COHSEC etc.), the legal construct is that the Committee considers the facts and gives a reasoned opinion. The President then decides.

Problems

This legal construction functions if the Office has a President who is prepared to consider the reasoned opinions which the consultative committees give him. However, Mr Battistelli has in the past ignored the medical opinions of doctors in the Medical Committee and decided that staff members not capable of performing their job for medical reasons should nevertheless not be sent on invalidity. This is something that no other President has done. Not even Mr Pompidou, who in contrast to Mr Battistelli, was a doctor. It should also be well known by now that Mr Battistelli as a matter of course ignores opinions of the Internal Appeals Committee that are favourable to staff. Mr Battistelli so disliked the reasoned opinions of the GAC that he abolished it and replaced it with the GCC, which, according to his understanding, is not allowed to give opinions, and merely votes on proposals2.

It should thus come as no surprise that Mr Battistelli also ignores the reasoned opinions of the Disciplinary Committee. In the past, he has imposed disciplinary measures on staff which are more severe than the Committee recommended. In other cases, he has imposed severe disciplinary measures even though the Committee considered that no disciplinary measure should be applied.

The above is worrying enough. However, there are further reasons why staff should be concerned with the functioning of the Disciplinary Committee:

1. The President’s nominations as Chairman and deputy

The President nominates the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee and his deputy. The Disciplinary Committee is not a “standing committee”. That is to say, it does not have a fixed constitution. Rather, its membership (other than the Chairman) changes from case to case (see below). Thus it is of crucial importance who the President nominates as Chairman. This person is the only member who has an overview of similar cases and has experience in
___________________________________
1 A warning or reprimand may be issued without consulting the Disciplinary Committee. More serious measures e.g. downgrading or dismissal require consultation.
2 This is one reason why the GCC is for staff inferior to the GAC and thus a reason why abolishing the GAC severely limits staff’s consultation rights.


handling cases, drafting opinions and so on. This is particularly important since the Committee has limited e.g. legal support for reasons of confidentiality.

Up until this year, the President nominated members of the Legal Board of Appeal. That is to say, people who are both legally qualified and neither appointed by himself nor under his disciplinary authority. From this year, Mr Battistelli nominated managers on contract at grade A6. Thus, the President sends a case to the Disciplinary Committee chaired by a manager on contract who falls under his disciplinary (and managerial) authority. The Chairman, on behalf of the Committee drafts a recommendation. This recommendation goes back to the Chairman’s superior, namely the President. The President then decides.

This is precisely the construct which, in Findlay v. The United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights ruled against in case 22107/933 (see in particular §70 – 80 of that case)!

2. Significantly more cases

This year has seen a more than doubling of the number of disciplinary cases. In itself, this should be a cause for concern. In the course of their normal duties both the Chairman and deputy have a heavy burden of other work and duty travels. Indeed, the Chairman has staff in both The Hague and Munich. We thus hope that both of them will be able to give this task the time it requires, especially (as seems likely) should the number of cases increase further. This was not a problem in the past (see above), when both nominees had tasks that ensured that they were generally available.

3. The President interfering with Staff Committee nominations

According to Article 98(1) ServRegs, half the nominations to the Disciplinary Committee are made by the President and half by the Staff Committee. These nominations are made by grade or group-of-grades. Who is to serve as member in a particular case is decided by drawing of lots. The names in the draw may not be of a grade (or group-of-grades) lower than that of the subject of the case. For example, if the case subject is an A3 examiner, then only Disciplinary Committee nominees in group of grades A4(2)/A1, A5 or A6 are in the draw.

For reasons of independence (see above) and procedural expertise the Staff Committee has mainly nominated members and chairmen of the Boards of Appeal for the A5 and A6 slots. These nominations have all been deleted by Mr Battistelli (see also recent Communiqué 62). This despite the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO already having decided in Judgment 1147, that the Staff Committee may nominate DG3 members to statutory bodies. Indeed, in a submission in the proceedings leading to this Judgment, the Office even argued in its surrejoinder (see §E) that “Since disciplinary committees are quasi-judicial bodies it is proper for them to benefit from the experience of a DG 3 official”.

The effect on staff of this change is that there are fewer Staff Committee members whose
names may be drawn in a particular disciplinary case.

4. No possibility of internal appeal

As part of the appeal reform in 2012, decisions taken following consultation of the Disciplinary Committee are excluded from the internal appeals system. That is to say, there is
___________________________________
3 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-58016


no further internal oversight mechanism. The affected staff member has to file a complaint directly with the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO.

The Internal Appeals Committee used to be relatively good at picking up formal violations. It also performed an important fact finding role – a job which the Tribunal does not do; it expects that already to have been done.

Removing oversight of disciplinary decisions from the IAC thus means that an important instance for staff has been removed. It also increases the need for the Disciplinary Committee to produce error free, comprehensive and legally sound opinions which can form the basis of complaints in front of the ILO. Given that the Disciplinary Committee is not a standing committee and given that the Chairman is no longer legally qualified, we would be surprised if this was always the case.

Conclusions

For the above reasons, we consider that at the moment the Office no longer has a properly functioning disciplinary mechanism. We thus recommend all staff whom are unfortunate enough to have a case brought against them to raise the above procedural violations should they bring their case in front of the Administrative Tribunal.

Finally

If the above sounds bad enough for “normal” staff members such as examiners, administrators, lawyers, formalities officers etc. consider the position of A5, A6 and A7 staff.

Owing to the President’s actions, there are now only two A5 and no A6 Disciplinary Committee members nominated by the Staff Committee (see above). Thus, it is not possible to form a valid committee for staff in these grades. How do you draw lots for two names from a pot comprising two (for A5 staff) or no (for A6 staff) names? However, we note that the Internal Appeals Committee is currently carrying on its work without any Staff Committee nominees. We thus suspect that Mr Battistelli would likewise instruct the Disciplinary Committee to proceed in such cases with only members nominated by himself!

From Article 98(3) ServRegs it is obvious that it was originally intended that a Disciplinary Committee would be formed for dealing with proceedings affecting staff at grade A7. However, under the latest vice-President contracts, these provisions no longer apply. That is to say, disciplinary measures may be imposed, by the Council, following an investigation by the President’s investigative unit, against a vice-President without first consulting a Disciplinary Committee.

Is it any wonder that, by their silence, these groups of staff have shown remarkable loyalty to Mr Battistelli?

As Thomas Jefferson put it: “when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”.

The Central Staff Committee

Since then, the Administrative Tribunal of ILO found the composition of these Disciplinary Committees to be invalid, thus voiding over a hundred prior rulings. But ILO being ILO, it succumbed to Battistelli and eventually let sheer injustices remain in tact, rendering ILO itself complicit (rather than an effective watchdog).

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