01.29.19

Gemini version available ♊︎

Compensation for Damages and Discrimination: The Case (One Among Several) Against EPO Vice-President Topić

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Kuterovac Topić WIPO 2010

Summary: Incredibly enough, it is nearly a decade late that Topić finds himself facing the prospect of accountability for things he did more than a decade ago

Submission from the Topić case (heard 16/1/2019) has been translated for us by one who can speak Croatian. Topić “has a deadline of 30 days to reply,” the translator noted. This should, in our humble opinion, be obligatory reading for all EPO insiders. It helps to know who one’s boss was. The lawlessness at the EPO may then seem symbiotic. A lot of information was suppressed by Team Battistelli, which had chosen to give this man millions of euros (or at least a million euros in salaries and bonuses). His contract was renewed/extended in spite of all the scandals. Battistelli himself, helped by the supine Administrative Council, was absolutely fine with this person.

This European Patent Office (EPO) Vice-President seems like a perfect fit for Team Battistelli because less than a year ago Battistelli sent millions of EPO euros to his other employer. It’s corruption. Topić finished his job about a month ago. Now he’s back to Croatia where he is very belatedly in court (case delayed by nearly a decade while Topić enjoyed the EPO’s diplomatic immunity). Here is the submission in English (emphasis in yellow is ours):

Zagreb, January 16, 2019

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT COURT IN ZAGREB

Sent. No. 48: Pn-532/11

 

Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant: ŽELJKO TOPIĆ, OIB 18700988630, Zamenhofova Street 23,

10 000 Zagreb, represented by the attorney’s lawyer Mladen Prka

 

Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor: VESNA STILIN, OIB 84613242441, Biokovske stube 4,

10 000 Zagreb

 

Regarding: Compensation for damages,

Determination of discrimination

 

 

SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANT-COUNTER-PROSECUTOR

2x________________________________________________________________________

 

The Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor responds to the submission of the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant dated 28.11.2018.

 

The aforementioned submission is entirely incorrect, without reference to any material provision.

 

The Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant’s claim – that the he was not a party to the proceedings stated by the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor – is incorrect. A private penal litigation for defamation, substantially identical to this civil litigation (in addition to the discrimination against the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor), in which the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant and Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor are the parties in this litigation, with the final decision in favor of the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor, which is attached to this file (pages 70-134), along with the documentation of the above-mentioned private penal litigation, which was continuously monitored by the English “Techrights” portal (pages 146-159 of the file), which denies the allegations of the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant.

 

The aforementioned is not the only private penal litigation for defamation in which the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor and the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant are the parties in the litigation (pages 37-45 and 232-278 of the file); where after 6 verdicts and the false testimony of Ms. Romana Matanovac Vučković, the former deputy of the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant, the litigation was finalized against the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor. It was the so-called: The “defamatory version of the dismissal”, which the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor so called because of the gross untruths secretly filed with the Croatian Government about her by the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant. The Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant’s letter dated 19. 2. 2008 (pages 37 and 232) was sent to the Government of the Republic of Croatia, which the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor accidentally found out about a year and three months after the “official version of the dismissal” (pages 36 and 187). The Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant not only hid this letter from the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor, but he did not provide it to her despite her request for it (page 409, 416 files, letter dated 11.5.2009, lawsuit dated 12.11.2009), which is contrary to Article 10, paragraph 1, clause 4 of the on Access to Information Act (OG 172/03), which is punishable by Article 26 of the same Act, and the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor, having received the letter from the Government of the Republic of Croatia on 2.7.2009, initiated on the 1.10.2009, a private penal lawsuit for defamation against the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant (pages 232-278).

 

The fact that the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor filed in the file also disputes where the defendant is the Government of the Republic of Croatia, as contested the appointment of the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant for the Director of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) in 2008 (pages 378-394) is because in the meantime it was confirmed exactly what the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor pointed out in her lawsuit dated 21.4.2008 (pages 378-379), which means that the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant fulfilled the elements of the penal offense against official duty: abuse of office and powers by damaging directly or indirectly the State Budget of the Republic of Croatia (page 366) and giving the Minister of Science a bribe, who is a member of the Government of the Republic of Croatia who appoints the director of the SIPO. And he bought his second term of office as director of SIPO in 2008 by paying for an Audi 6 for the Minister of Science (pages 101-102, 120-124, 149, 153, 155, 307-309, 356-358, 371-373, 379, 392). The fact is that the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor did not have access to a court in the Republic of Croatia in connection with this case (pages 388-389), and has still not received a response from the European Court of Human Rights, despite her repeated requests (pages 390-400).

 

In relation to the “official version of the dismissal” (pages 36, 187-206), the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor was dismissed by the Government of Croatia upon the proposal of the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant, and not by force of the expiration of her mandate (pages 100-152), as he stated in the private penal case which was decided in favor of the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor, when he was heard about the cause of the termination of the employment of the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor. Additionally, in the same private penal case, the court noted that the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor, by virtue of his official certification, confirmed that the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor fulfilled the duties of Assistant Director at SIPO on a permanent basis (pages 100, 135, 152) and she could not, by force of expiry of her mandate, cease to work. The aforementioned, with additional documentation regarding the motion of the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor for annulment of her dismissal in 2008 (pages 17, 33-35, 66, 72, 136, 334-335, 338, 344-355), with penal proceedings against the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant (pages 66-67, 356-370), which is in the final stages, will certainly give a wider insight into this case.

 

In the submission of Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant from 28 November 2018, he stated that the litigants were state officials who were appointed by the Government of the Republic of Croatia and that the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor was appointed by the Government of the Republic of Croatia, and was also dismissed of her duties on the proposal of the Prime Minister (Ivo Sanader AN) and that all of his actions were solely based upon his position of the Director of the SIPO in accordance with his rights and obligations, were entirely untrue. At the moment of the appointment by the Croatian Government in 2004 (OG 77/04) the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor was a state official, but following the EU proposal, changes in the status of certain state officials in civil servants were introduced in Croatia, including the change of the status of Assistant Directors in governmental organizations such as SIPO from the status of a state officials to the status of civil servants, based on Article 151 paragraph 1 of the Civil Servants Act (OG 92/05, …) and Article 3 paragraph 1 of the Amendments to the Law on the Obligations and Rights of State Officials (OG 141/06), so that it is the solely the director of a governmental organization, here the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant remains the only state official within SIPO. It is apparent from the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Croatia from 10 April 2008 (pages 36, 187) that the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor was dismissed from the post of Assistant Director of SIPO on the proposal of the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant and not, as he states, on the proposal of the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Croatia. The Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant’s statement that his actions were solely based on his position of the Director of SIPO, in accordance with his rights and obligations, absolutely does not stand. The Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant announced to the European Union under the CARDS program no. 60343 (page 171), that due to the insufficient number of employees in the Department of Author and Related Rights (only two people), he announced as a permanent task the recruitment of new employees who would work under the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor, but in practice he did just the opposite. He abolished, by unlawful procedure, secretly (page 179), without explanation, the Department of Author and Related Rights in the Statute on the Internal Organization of SIPO – NN 30/08 (pages 11, 30, 180, 185, 406-430 ), although copyright and related rights constitutes one of the two major branches of intellectual property rights (pages 160-170), which violates the compulsory provision of Article 20 Paragraph 2 of the Access to Information Act (OG 172/03) on the availability of the draft Statute on the Internal Organization of SIPO to all of the authorized people, including the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor. He also completely ignored the recommendations of independent European experts on the need to increase employees in the Department of Author and Related Rights in the CARDS Program no. 92-022 (pages 172-178), throwing figuratively into the wind almost 2,000,000.00 Euros for the 2 CARDS programs which were paid for by the European Union. Although there were 5 Assistant Directors in SIPO (pages 197-198), of equal status, the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant applied the legal procedure regarding the dismissal towards 4 of his assistants, described in Article 48, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the disputed Statute on the Internal Organization of SIPO (page 215). However, he did not apply the above procedure to the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor (pages 211-214), who was the only person left without a job, while towards the other assistants whose jobs were also abolished; he offered them other corresponding jobs. The Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant not only discriminated against the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor in relation to the other assistants in the dismissal procedure, but was extremely deceitful towards her, approving her vacation from 14-18.4.2008 (page 186), and secretly before The Government of the Republic of Croatia, based on his proposal of 8.4.2008, obtained her retroactive dismissal on 10.4.2008 (pages 36, 187). She was removed from SIPO on 18.4.2008, and had no place to return to (at SIPO) during the pinnacle of her preparation for The European Congress on the Public Lending Rights, which should have been held in Croatia (but the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant cancelled it) for the purpose of financial aid to writers and the establishment of a new right, the public lending right, based on Directive 92/100/EEC (pages 181-183, 279-294, 299-305, 310-328, 336-337). The public lending right was solely researched and coordinated by the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor on the state level, and SIPO was the coordinator based on the document of the Government of the Republic of Croatia called “National Strategy for the Development of the Intellectual Property System of the Republic of Croatia 2005 -2010″ (pages 300-301).

 

The Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant has discriminated against the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor not only regarding equal status with the other assistant directors of the SIPO in the procedure of the dismissal, but he also discriminated against her because of her political party affiliation. A full review of the discrimination acts against the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor are described in her electronic mail dated 4.2.2008 (pages 340-343) sent to the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant. Also, in relation to her discrimination, the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor also refers to her electronic message of 9.4.2008, the day before her dismissal, sent to the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant (page 377). Also in her letter of 3.7.2008 sent to the Government of the Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Economy and the Central State Office of Administration/now the Ministry of Administration (pages 434-436). Also to her letter to Dragan Primorac dated 12.3.2009 (pages 431-432). Also according to the Press Release of the SIPO / Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant of 30.4.2012, which occurred during Zoran Milanović’s (Prime Minister) mandate, he notes that the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor is a member of HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) and he refused to acknowledge her demand for this Press Release (pages 374-375), and in the Memorandum of 6.2.2012 which describes the discrimination against the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor (pages 335, 338).

 

Following the aforementioned, it is proposed to the court, upon completion of the procedure, to dismiss the Prosecutor-Counter-Defendant’s lawsuit as unfounded, and to accept the Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor’s lawsuit, with the compensation for these civil costs.

 

Defendant-Counter-Prosecutor

Vesna Stilin

Notice the dates above; it’s an understatement to say that Croatian justice can be slow. Croatians need to reach out to European (external to Croatia) courts in pursuit of justice. We saw this before (other cases against Topić).

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. The Demolition of the EPO Was Made Possible With Assistance From Countries That Barely Have European Patents

    The legal basis of today's EPO has been crushed; a lot of this was made possible by countries with barely any stakes in the outcome



  2. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXII: The Balkan League - North Macedonia and Albania

    We continue to look at Benoît Battistelli‘s enablers at the EPO



  3. Links 24/10/2021: GPS Daemon (GPSD) Bug and Lots of Openwashing

    Links for the day



  4. Links 24/10/2021: XWayland 21.1.3 and Ubuntu Linux 22.04 LTS Daily Build

    Links for the day



  5. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 23, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, October 23, 2021



  6. Links 24/10/2021: Ceph Boss Sage Weil Resigns and Many GPL Enforcement Stories

    Links for the day



  7. GAFAM-Funded NPR Reports That Facebook Let Millions of People Like Trump Flout the So-called Rules. Not Just “a Few”.

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  8. Some Memes About What Croatia Means to the European Patent Office

    Before we proceed to other countries in the region, let’s not forget or let’s immortalise the role played by Croatia in the EPO (memes are memorable)



  9. Gangster Culture in the EPO

    The EPO‘s Administrative Council was gamed by a gangster from Croatia; today we start the segment of the series which deals with the Balkan region



  10. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXI: The Balkan League – The Doyen and His “Protégée”

    The EPO‘s circle of corruption in the Balkan region will be the focus of today’s (and upcoming) coverage, showing some of the controversial enablers of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, two deeply corrupt French officials who rapidly drive the Office into the ground for personal gain (at Europe’s expense!)



  11. Links 23/10/2021: FreeBSD 12.3 Beta, Wine 6.20, and NuTyX 21.10.0

    Links for the day



  12. IRC Proceedings: Friday, October 22, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, October 22, 2021



  13. [Meme] [Teaser] Crime Express

    The series about Battistelli's "Strike Regulations" (20 parts thus far) culminates as the next station is the Balkan region



  14. Links 23/10/2021: Star Labs/StarLite, Ventoy 1.0.56

    Links for the day



  15. Gemini on Sourcehut and Further Expansion of Gemini Space

    Gemini protocol is becoming a widely adopted de facto standard for many who want to de-clutter the Internet by moving away from the World Wide Web and HTML (nowadays plagued by JavaScript, CSS, and many bloated frameworks that spy)



  16. Unlawful Regimes Even Hungary and Poland Would Envy

    There’s plenty of news reports about Polish and Hungarian heads of states violating human rights, but never can one find criticism of the EPO’s management doing the same (the mainstream avoids this subject altogether); today we examine how that area of Europe voted on the illegal "Strike Regulations" of Benoît Battistelli



  17. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XX: The Visegrád Group

    The EPO‘s unlawful “Strike Regulations” (which helped Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos illegally crush or repress EPO staff) were supported by only one among 4 Visegrád delegates



  18. [Meme] IBM Has Paid ZDNet to Troll the Community

    Over the past few weeks ZDNet has constantly published courses with the word "master" in their headlines (we caught several examples; a few are shown above); years ago this was common, also in relation to IBM itself; clearly IBM thinks that the word is racially sensitive and offensive only when it's not IBM using the word and nowadays IBM pays ZDNet — sometimes proxying through the Linux Foundation — to relay this self-contradictory message whose objective is to shame programmers, Free software communities etc. (through guilt they can leverage more power and resort to projection tactics, sometimes outright slander which distracts)



  19. [Meme] ILO Designed to Fail: EPO Presidents Cannot be Held Accountable If ILOAT Takes Almost a Decade to Issue a Simple Ruling

    The recent ILOAT ruling (a trivial no-brainer) inadvertently reminds one of the severe weaknesses of ILOAT; what good is a system of accountability that issues rulings on decisions that are barely relevant anymore (or too late to correct)?



  20. Links 22/10/2021: Trump's AGPL Violations and Chrome 95 Released

    Links for the day



  21. [Meme] How Corporate Monopolies Demonise Critics of Their Technically and Legally Problematic 'Products'

    When the technical substance of some criticism stands (defensible based upon evidence), and is increasingly difficult to refute based on facts, make up some fictional issue — a straw man argument — and then respond to that phony issue based on no facts at all



  22. Links 22/10/2021: Global Encryption Day

    Links for the day



  23. [Meme] Speaking the Same Language

    Language inside the EPO is misleading. Francophones Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos casually misuse the word “social”.



  24. António Campinos Thinks Salary Reductions Months Before He Leaves is “Exceptional Social Gesture”

    Just as Benoît Battistelli had a profound misunderstanding of the concept of “social democracy” his mate seems to completely misunderstand what a “social gesture” is (should have asked his father)



  25. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 21, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, October 21, 2021



  26. Links 21/10/2021: MX Linux 21 and Git Contributors’ Summit in a Nutshell

    Links for the day



  27. [Meme] [Teaser] Miguel de Icaza on CEO of Microsoft GitHub

    Our ongoing series, which is very long, will shed much-needed light on GitHub and its goals (the dark side is a lot darker than people care to realise)



  28. Gemini Protocol and Gemini Space Are Not a Niche; for Techrights, Gemini Means Half a Million Page Requests a Month

    Techrights on gemini:// has become very big and we’ll soon regenerate all the pages (about 37,500 of them) to improve clarity, consistency, and general integrity



  29. 'Satellite States' of EPO Autocrats

    Today we look more closely at how Baltic states were rendered 'voting fodder' by large European states, looking to rubber-stamp new and oppressive measures which disempower the masses



  30. [Meme] Don't Mention 'Brexit' to Team UPC

    It seems perfectly clear that UPC cannot start, contrary to what the EPO‘s António Campinos told the Council last week (lying, as usual) and what the EPO insinuates in Twitter; in fact, a legal challenge to this should be almost trivial


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

Recent Posts