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

01.29.19

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 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. Links 17/11/2019: Slax Beta and Arch Conf 2019 Report





  2. Understanding Thierry Breton: The “Cost-Killer” Tries to Tame the National Debt

    The oligarchic policy of Thierry Breton at Bercy



  3. Reactions to Last Week's Thierry Breton Hearing

    Nobody is particularly impressed by Thierry Breton except those who know little about him (and he contributes to this lack of knowledge by obstructing, omitting, and misleading)



  4. The Open Invention Network Has Become a Guard Dog of (Some) Patent Trolls and It Misrepresents Us Under the Guise of 'Open Source'

    The Open Invention Network (OIN), in collaboration with Fraunhöfer, is promoting software patents and all sorts of other nonsense as part of ‘open’ standards in a new paper sponsored by the EU and edited by the former EPO Chief Economist Nikolaus Thumm (not Battistelli's choice); this is another reminder of the fact that OIN misrepresents Free/Open Source software (FOSS) developers and their interests



  5. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, November 16, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, November 16, 2019



  6. Unitary Patent is Dead Partly Because the EPO Demonstrated That EPC is Being Routinely Violated, Illegal Patents Granted

    Some elements of Team UPC have given up, whereas others try to push the lie that Unitary Patent/Unified Patent Court (UPC) is not an EU thing and that therefore everything is fine



  7. USPTO Rewards Microsoft for Corruption at ISO by Teaching People Proprietary OOXML and Promoting Its Use

    The world's most important patent office promotes Microsoft lock-in, revealing not only corporate bias but also highlighting ways in which Microsoft crimes continue to pay off



  8. No, Startpage is Not Dutch Anymore

    Startpage is still clinging onto perceptions rather than truths; it means that Startpage isn't just betraying privacy but it's also dishonest and untrustworthy



  9. Understanding Thierry Breton: Chirac's Entrepreneurial “Joker”

    Minister in charge of the public treasury was not a career politician but an “entrepreneur” with a proven track-record as a financial wizard and “cost-killer”



  10. Links 16/11/2019: New Debian Release, Wine staging 4.20

    Links for the day



  11. IRC Proceedings: Friday, November 15, 2019

    IRC logs for Friday, November 15, 2019



  12. Microsoft Doesn't Love Linux, It Just Buys Linux

    Microsoft's takeover or abduction of its opposition's voice isn't an act of love but an act of occupation, a hostile colonisation that enables digital pillage and plunder



  13. Koch's Reply to EPO Through ILO and Techrights' Interpretation of Koch v EPO Documents Help Show That ILO-AT is Played by EPO Management

    Sending cases back and forth, without the complainant being involved, means that justice is in eternal ‘limbo’ and thus the abusive management of the European Patent Office (EPO) — first Team Battistelli and now Team Campinos — can get away with anything the bullies do (no judgment of substance being delivered)



  14. EPO Running ILO's Tribunal (ILO-AT) 'in a Loop' to Perpetually Delay and Drain the EPO's Complainants (Aggrieved Staff) Out of Money

    ILO’s Administrative Tribunal — a court for aggrieved EPO staff and other international organisations’ staff (usually known as ILO-AT for short) — is a major farce; when “time is money” and lawyers charge as much as 400 euros an hour the EPO’s management can exploit/misuse its cash reserves to also game justice and buy legal outcomes



  15. ILO is Not Functioning and ILO-AT Helps the Abusive Management of the European Patent Office

    It is becoming increasingly clear, based for example on Koch v EPO, that ILO-AT is where a lot of money will be spent on lawyers and rarely will that result in real justice (but it certainly helps EPO management pretend that staff has safeguards)



  16. Links 16/11/2019: Wine 4.20, Picolibc 1.1

    Links for the day



  17. Understanding Thierry Breton: Moral Responsibility for “a Capitalism That Kills”?

    "...France Télécom which had previously been defined by an ethos of public service, by egalitarian working conditions and by a sense of universal mission, had now been transformed into a "cash machine” whose sole purpose was to generate shareholder value on international financial markets."



  18. FOSSPatents Conference is Against FOSS, Promoting the FOSS-Hostile Construct Known as RAND or FRAND

    Do not be misled by the term Free/Open Source software (FOSS) in the name FOSSPatents and whatever relates to it (e.g. FOSSPatents Conference); it's not about FOSS but against FOSS, or pro-FRAND



  19. Europe is Under Attack

    European politicians or political candidates pretend to be 'candid'; but they're agents of Power, or put another way, they're there to make the rich and powerful class even richer and more powerful by passing new, ruinous laws in the name of 'the people' or 'for SMEs'



  20. Links 15/11/2019: New Opera and Brave, GNU/Linux Flatpa(c)ked

    Links for the day



  21. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, November 14, 2019

    IRC logs for Thursday, November 14, 2019



  22. Understanding Thierry Breton: Toxic Management Goes on Trial in France

    "In each of these cases, the suicide served as a symbolic act of protest to denounce workplace conditions at France Télécom and attract public attention to its practices."



  23. Thierry Breton's Video/Live Grilling is Over, But the Grilling Continues Online

    Elite politicians aren't reluctant to give Thierry Breton the high seat (or throne); but everyone else realises that this resembles a corporate takeover more than anything



  24. The EPO's Low Patent Quality is Not Just Suicidal; It is Illegal

    With help from the besieged Boards of Appeal (BoAs), which complain that they can no longer judge cases (appeals/referrals) autonomously and independently, the Office in Munich continues to grossly violate the EPC and mimic China's ridiculously low patent bar, which even formally permits patents on algorithms



  25. Links 14/11/2019: Mesa 19.2.4 and GCC 7.5 Released

    Links for the day



  26. Microsoft is Not an Open Source Company But Microsoft Bribed and Took Over Many Open Source Authorities (Rivals' Voice Hijacked)

    Free/Open Source software (FOSS) and GNU/Linux are being taken over by Microsoft moles, bought by Microsoft Corporation, and the collective voice of the alternative to Microsoft and Windows is being muzzled (they tell us they "love" us while they're attacking us and sometimes suing us)



  27. Techrights' Interpretation of Koch v EPO: The EPO's Management Still Attacks Staff Representatives

    The EPO hopes to get its victims (of EPO abuse) to not only foot their own bills but also the EPO's



  28. Understanding Thierry Breton: “Mister Cash” Arrives at France Télécom

    The psychological harassment of the France Télécom workforce led the "suicide wave" after Breton had left France Télécom



  29. The Breton-Battistelli Relationship and Breton Hiding His Employment Record at Rothschild & Cie Banque

    EPO scoundrels such as Battistelli are closer to Breton than most people care to realise; Breton is hiding part of his career ahead of today's grilling



  30. A Lot of EPO Staff on Dutch Land Protested (Despite Abusive Threats From Management) and a Strike is Reportedly Next

    EPO management in Rijswijk tried hard to prevent workers from protesting on their free time (lunch break), reaffirming that same old belief that nothing is changing at the EPO and nothing will change without truly disruptive action


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