Bonum Certa Men Certa

Judges at the EPO (Boards of Appeal) Can Still be Punished for Ruling 'Unfavourably' on Patent Maximalism

When judges are appointed or reappointed for loyalty/agenda things are bound to go south, with decisions acutely distressing

Roland Freisler
His Master's Voice Roland Freisler, Germany's own William Barr



Summary: The EPO follows juridical standards reminiscent of 'third-world countries' and even the German Constitutional Court is raising concerns about it, perhaps recalling a harrowing past of judges as mere extension of the executive (and executing) branch

THE EPO's Central Staff Committee has been very busy during the lock-downs. It wrote a large number of internal publications and circulated letters; while staff was besieged at home the representatives sought to guard the rights of staff. We applaud them for this; the same people who risked firing/defamation from António Campinos had also done that in the Benoît Battistelli era; we see many of the same names (staff trusts these people and re-elects them).



We have not heard about the Boards of Appeal's (BoA) Presidium for a very long time. Years in fact. It's still there, however, along with AMBA and other key bodies which lashed out at Battistelli and Kongstad (the corrupt slaughterer of chinchillas).

Roland Freisler, Franz Schlegelberger, Otto Georg Thierack and Curt Rothenberger"Career System for the Boards of Appeal," as the Central Staff Committee put it, was also discussed. "Consultation in the Presidium" was done as the "Administrative Council ha[d] decided in 2019 that the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal (BoA) should be consulted on any proposal which concerns the conditions of employment of the members and chairs of the Boards, instead of the GCC. The Presidium has now given its (quite interesting) opinion on the Performance Evaluation Guidelines and the Career System for the BoA."

For the uninitiated, every BoA deals with matters of law and compliance (like the EPC), unlike the EPO's examiners, accountable directly to the Office. It's very important that BoA members are well compensated (to attract suitable and competent candidates) and also independent, which they still aren't. We occasionally see the Office meddling in their affairs. This harms their ability to judge independently, so impartiality can no longer be presumed.

Here's what the publication from the Organisation says:

4 May 2020

Presidium’s Opinion on the Performance Evaluation Guidelines and the Career System



Dear Members of the BoAC,

The President of the Boards of Appeal asked the elected members of the Presidium to provide you with advice on the amended performance evaluation guidelines. While the elected members do not have major problems with the few editorial changes with respect to the previous version, they find it appropriate to provide their opinion on the whole document in the broader context of a discussion on amendments to the career system and to the performance evaluation guidelines. We note that Article 9 of the proposed guidelines provides a link between evaluation reports and the career system. In our view, the issues are also so inextricably linked that our main comments belong in a single document.

Summary

We generally welcome a fair and transparent Performance Evaluation System for certain purposes, however we think that the current career system in combination with its Performance Evaluation Guidelines are not suitable for the career development and re-appointment of members of the Boards of Appeal with judicial, in particular final instance judicial functions.

Career System

Although it is hard to explain all the principles, history, issues and problems in a short text, in the following, we try to give a comprehensible summary.

Before the introduction of the new career system, board members were in the A5 grade scale and chairs (then called chairmen) in the A6 grade scale. Step advancement within the grades was automatic (i.e. based on experience), yearly or two-yearly. There was some overlap between the grades. Moving from the post of member (A5) to chair (A6) required a new appointment based on a selection procedure that included a performance assessment and an assessment of the candidate’s suitability for the new post. The functions of members and chairs were clearly separated.

The new Office career system introduced “technical” and a “managerial” career paths, each with a hierarchy of job groups and a corresponding range of non-overlapping grades. Step progression is performance-based, and grade advancement is via a promotion.

Job groupTechnical pathManagerial pathGrade rangeOld grade
Job group 2Principal advisor
Board of appeal chairman
Principal directorG15, step1 –
G16, step 4
A6
Job group 3Senior expert
Board of appeal member
DirectorG13, step 3 –
G15, step 4
A5


All members of the Boards are in the “technical” career path. Members are in job group 3 and chairs in group 2. The previous grades (A5/A6) corresponded to these job groups, but the relevant new grades (G13-G16) are more fine-grained. As a result, there was more than one new grade in each job group and hence a possible promotion within each job group. This still applies to members (see below).

In its December 2014 meeting, the Council approved the new system “on the understanding that the provisions regarding appraisal, performance, step advancement, bonus, promotion and all career-related elements for Council appointees as members of the boards of appeal will not apply until specific provisions have been included in documents concerning the organisation and functioning of DG 3...” (OJ 2015, page 4)

In May 2015, the Presidium and the committee of the Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal (AMBA) noted this in a letter to the joint DG3/Office Task Force responsible for the institutional reform of the Boards of Appeal. They also offered their view that the provisions presented to the Council should be appropriate for persons exercising a judicial function and should have inter alia:

- No performance-related pay (Nr. 55 of CM/Rec(2010)12), which implies: ● A third career path “Boards of Appeal” with a single grade per function; ● Job profiles with core competencies which are specific to the BoA; ● Seniority based step in grade advancement; ● No bonuses; ● A salary package which will allow the BOA to recruit competent members bothfrom inside and outside the Office.

In September 2015, the Presidium/AMBA met with the Task Force and presented further considerations for an appropriate career system (see Annex 1).

The Office subsequently submitted an orientation paper CA/98/15 on the structural reform. AMBA commented on it in a position paper in December 2015 inter alia as follows:

7. The proposal puts the Boards back in the Office’s “technical” career path (as defined in Art. 47 ServRegs) [24]. The Council recognised this as inappropriate for the Boards, which is why a transitional system was adopted. Not mentioned is the Boards’ paper regarding a career system. The main points were that the principles of judicial independence and security of tenure require that re-appointment should not be based on performance and that all board members (or chairs) do the same job so that proficiency levels and promotion within a job level make no sense and would give a strange impression to the parties. The paper also proposed various scenarios to address these problems, by having grade advancement at re-appointment.

In June 2016, the Council approved the reform of the Boards of Appeal (CA/43/16 Rev.1), which put the members and chairs in the same “technical” career system as examiners, but with a modified progression (paragraphs [31-42] and the changes to the ServRegs in CA/D 8/16). Essentially, members and chairs were assigned the fixed grades G14 step 1 and G16 step 1, respectively. There was no possibility of step advancement and the promotion of members from G14/1 to G15/1 (there is no corresponding provision for chairs) was dependent on a recommendation by the President of the BoA at the same time as reappointment (i.e. once every five years).

This structure was favourable for new members, who would start in the Boards on the grade of G14/1, which corresponded to the old grade of around A5/9, i.e. up to nine years ahead of where they would have been previously. However, it was not so good for experienced members who, being at the same grade, effectively lost around nine years in comparison to new colleagues. Moreover, the only available further advancement was the “promotion” to G15/1, which was conditional on a recommendation determined solely by the President of the BoA.

In July 2016, AMBA commented on this as follows:

Instead of a providing a career system appropriate to a judicial body, the link between grade and performance evaluation for the Technical and Legal members may result in substantial differences in remuneration for members doing essentially the same work. This sort of substantial monetary reward for productivity is unknown in Member States (two or three do have a very small fraction of judges’ salary dependent on appraisal, and they are strongly criticised for it by the CCEJ).

Recently, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court held, in their decision BVerfG, 2 BvR 780/16, Rdnr. 59 (unofficial translation from the German original) that:

Measures concerning the status of the judge may also be indirect influences on the judicial decision. By limiting such possibilities of influence, the danger of "rewarding" or "punishing" for a certain decision-making behaviour is to be countered....

For this reason, the advancement of judges in the pay grades must be standardised by law and must not be left to the discretion of the executive.

It would be unconstitutional for the administration of justice to have discretion to assign judges with the same office and the same judicial function to posts of different grades.

Furthermore, in order to protect the independence of judges, Article 97 paragraph 1 German constitution (Grundgesetz) contains the fundamental obligation to avoid a hierarchical structuring of the judiciary by creating “Beförderungsämter” (loosely: promotion positions) along the lines of the career development principle under civil service law and to provide for as few promotion positions as possible.

It is our view that the present career system does not respect these basic principles; the advancement is not standardised by law, but is at the sole discretion of the President of the BoA based on his evaluation of performance, there is assignment of members with the same functions to different grades (G14/1 and G15/1), which is a hierarchical structure that follows the Office’s “technical” career path.

The fact that, unlike others in the same job group, members and chairs have no possibility of reaching the final grade and step is a further cause for concern, but is left aside for the purposes of this paper.

Evaluation Guidelines

The President of the BoA has drafted guidelines for the evaluation of the performance of members and chairs (chairmen) of the Boards of Appeal.

However, these do not remove the “discretion on the part of the judicial administration to appoint [Board members] with the same office and the same judicial function to posts of different grades” as objected to in the above noted German constitutional court decision. Rather, they retain the President of the BoA’s sole authority over such discretion. This amounts to what is often referred to as a lack of “internal” independence.

Although the Presidium objects to this lack of internal independence as such, the current system would already be improved if the Guidelines specified how the discretion was to be exercised. This would go some way towards the “standardis[ation] by law” of the advancement in grade. It is regrettable that the Guidelines give no guidance at all, but only refer to the evaluation reports in Article 9(1) and need for at least one assessment of very good in Article 9(3).

The evaluation report templates in the Annex to the Guidelines, in turn, give no guidance in this respect, since, in the definition of the overall grades 1 and 2, there is no explanation of what is meant by contributes greatly or significantly to the performance and functioning of the board (see the explanations under “Overall grade”, Grade 1 and Grade 2 in item 4 of the Annex), or how any objective judgment of this can be made; moreover, in plain English, they are synonymous. As will be recognised, it is the overall grade, and that alone, which is of importance and which determines possible advancement, and this is entirely at the discretion of the President of the BoA.

Further, it will be noted that, in the Annex to the Guidelines, before point 1 (Objectives), the introduction states that the “focus of the performance evaluation shall lie on quality”, and indeed many of the competencies refer to aspects attributable to quality. However, the overall grade which “shall depend on how the individual competencies have been evaluated”, is not based on this, but on unstated criteria concerning the contribution to the performance and functioning of the Board, leading to an unpredictable result. An example of this is the inexplicable discrepancy in the promotion rate of legally and technically qualified members.

It should also be understood that the President of the BoA, who exercises discretion on the overall grade, is faced with input from chairs who each evaluate their own Board members without knowing what standard other chairs are using in their evaluations. Simply put, one chair might evaluate their members as “very good” while another chair might evaluate their members as “sufficient”, although performance is essentially equal. Thus, even the evaluations provided by the individual chairs will not provide the President of the BoA with the information needed to exercise discretion in an objective manner.

Conclusion

The elected members of the Presidium, the autonomous authority within the Boards of Appeal Unit under R. 12(b)(1) EPC, welcome the opportunity of presenting our view on the career system and its application.

In our view, the present career system and its guidelines are not suitable for the promotion and re-appointment of members of the Boards of Appeal with judicial, in particular final instance judicial functions.

We would respectfully ask that you recognise this and consider initiating improvements.

Alternatively, and as a preliminary step, we would invite you, as the Administrative Council’s advisory body in respect of its supervisory duties relating to the BoA (CA/D 7/16, Article 4, paragraph 1), to advise the AC to have an independent review of the system carried out by an appropriate internationally recognised body such as the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ).

Finally, in analogy with the Administrative Council’s rules for staff representatives at council meetings, we would request that two members of the Presidium be present at BoAC meetings to discuss this matter (see Rules of Procedure of the AC, Article 7, paragraph 4.1 and Article 14, paragraph 5, which also applies to the meetings of the BoAC, see CA/D 7/16, Article 3, paragraph 4).

Yours sincerely,

The elected members of the Presidium.


This shows that in legal and practical terms little has improved; Campinos squashed the 'Haar question' and judges never regained their autonomy/independence. Now, as it turns out, the system for promotion (or demotion in the sense of lack of promotion as per a fixed scale, set aside re-appointments) is another way to 'punish' judges who rule the 'wrong' way. This is the pattern of judgments we're accustomed to seeing in primitive nations where law is tied to religion, monarchy, cults and superstitions.

Recent Techrights' Posts

An Update About Soylent News, With Jan Rinok "Back in the Saddle"
Burnout or "near burnout" a possibility when having to curate abuse
Rejecting 'Snoop-Phones' and Turning "Old" Phones (or Tablets) Into Freedom-Respecting Appliances
Paul Fernhout (pdfernhout.net) wrote back to Akira Urushibatathis this past weekend
 
Every Morning
Bugs/edge cases combined with automation can spell disaster
Insane, Deliberately Dishonest, or Just Another Bigot?
very intellectually-dishonest human being
A Lot of Techrights is Built on Perl
Perl also runs the sister site
The Register MS Selling Slop for Microsoft (Vapourware, Ponzi Scheme, False Claims)
What will be left of The Register MS if it keeps repeating falsehoods and looking to profit from Ponzi schemes?
analytics.usa.gov Says Less Than 14% of Web Requests (to Government Sites) Come From Vista 11
Vista 11 was released more than 4 years ago!
People Who Attempt to Take Down Correct Information Need a Doctor a Day
“Journalism is printing something that someone does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 20, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, October 20, 2025
Vista 11 is Sinking While Microsoft is PIPing (Mass Layoffs But Silent Layoffs)
We're witnessing a shift in platform dominance
Richard Stallman is Having a Good Week Already (Stallman Was Right About 'Clown Computing')
That alone is worth bringing up in his talk
When Prominent GNU/Linux Distros Are Run by Spies
What has Microsoft Canonical become?
More Publishers and Companies Nowadays Say "GNU/Linux", Not "Linux"
It's not to see InstallAware saying GNU/Linux this week
Google News is Now Promoting a Parasitic Slopfarm Called "findarticles.com", Where Plagiarism of "Linux" Articles is Rampant
Does Google even care about the slop epidemic? Google itself is a vendor of slop now (and it calls it "Gemini")
Gemini Links 20/10/2025: Pumpkin Carving, "Hey Hi", and Other Buzzwords
Links for the day
Slopwatch: Google News Promoting Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD)
What is the value of Google News if so many results in it are fake 'articles?
Our Uptime This Year Was Better Than AWS (Also a Lot Cheaper)
We never used "the cloud"
Amazon Web Shenanigans
An ongoing, experimental endeavour
Death of Elias Diem: FSFE mailing list archives hidden
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Links 20/10/2025: Louvre Museum Reveals Weakness, About 7 Million Protest US Turning Into Oligarchy/Monarchy
Links for the day
They Should Have Listened to Techrights Over a Month Earlier (Xubuntu Site Compromised)
we reported this issue about 40 days earlier and nobody did anything about it
Richard Stallman to Give Another Talk Today in Bavaria (Bavarian Academy of Science)
Tomorrow at 6 PM he speaks in Munich
Apple is the Company of Dictators and Worse
Apple is just another greedy corporation in search of sweatshops and even pedophiles (especially the high-profile ones)
Counting Unhatched Eggs Is Not Counting Chickens
Everything here will persist as normal
Barry Kauler Explains That Puppy Linux and EasyOS Exclude Systemd to Keep Things Simple
Barry Kauler's Puppy Linux is in the community's hands. He now focuses on EasyOS and more.
The "Infinite Bread"
The biblical story of Jesus feeding the 5,000 has software parallels
Half a Year After Brian Fagioli Got Kicked Out of BetaNews for Slop He's Still Doing LLM Slop and Slop Images Targeting 'Linux' (Plagiarising Original Works)
If the Web gets polluted or flooded by slopfarms such as these, and Slashdot then sends traffic so these slopfarms (Slashdot probably doesn't do this intentionally), then real writers with real knowledge of GNU/Linux will lose the spark for publishing
In Many Cases and in Many Different Ways, Technology Became Less Durable and Less Reliable Over Time
The "modern" things are more complex. And complexity is a foe or reliability and repair-ability.
Microsoft's LinkedIn is Losing Money, Traffic, and Hope; Now It Wants to Sell Its Users' Lifeblood (and Data)
Let this be a reminder of what social control media really is about
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, October 19, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, October 19, 2025
Campaign of FUD Against Framework Laptops and GNU/Linux (Using Microsoft's Attack on Linux, 'Secure Boot')
Ritual Defamation Cult has turned its attention over to Framework
Microsoft Lunduke: Freedom of Speech Means Spreading What I Have to Say and Banning People I Disagree With
4Chan is one he aims for and he is siccing 4Chan trolls at people he doesn't like
Liberation From 'The Feed'
They rank things based on the editor's choice/ideology (he or she knows the sponsors, hence the masters)
Microsoft's Killing of Vista 10 Seems to Have Resulted in More Articles About GNU/Linux (But Also FUD)
We not only saw a rise in traffic, we also saw a remarkable rise in the number of articles
Today (a Day Before Richard Stallman Talk at TUM) There's a Patent Propaganda Event at TUM
Perhaps an opportunity for Dr. Stallman to rebut this "invention to patent" nonsense/fantasy (conflating monopolies with innovation)
OpenSource or "Open Source" as a Brand is Dying, Let's Get Back to Talking About Software Freedom
Those of us who actually want to reform the industry and put users in control of their systems/devices will recognise that "Open Source" was selling a lie or got-co-opted by liars
19 Years in Numbers: Techrights' Anniversary Countdown and Retrospective
In 2019 we began improving our workflows and, accordingly/predictably, we became a lot more productive
Slop Turns People Off (LLMs Lack Intelligence, They're Just Plagiarism Powerhouses That Fail to Deliver Any Real, Measurable Value)
"More" (or "MOAR") isn't always better
IBM Red Hat Has Re-calibrated or Adjusted to Bubble Economics, False Promises, and Slop/Plagiarism
This won't end well
Fake Numbers, Fake Claims, Fake Economy, and Media Grifters That Prop Up Fraud
Grifters like The Register MS won't be looked upon kindly after the bubble implodes
For Some, the GNU Web Site is Not Accessible This Week
They seem to have gone into some kind of lock-down mode
Richard Stallman Back at the "Rudolf-Diesel" Hörsal "MW 2001" in About 40 Hours
He spoke there before; there's a very high seating capacity there
Symptoms of Upcoming Microsoft Layoffs in XBox
A crashing franchise
Psychiatrist confession: Germanwings crash & Debian toxic culture recognized before suicides
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Gemini Links 19/10/2025: Scentjacking 101, Slop Hype Boosters, and Steam Next Fest
Links for the day
Slopwatch: The Serial Slopper, LinuxSecurity, and Google News
Let's hope slopfarms die as soon as possible
Links 19/10/2025: Cambodia Scam Centres, Slop Hurting Wikipedia Traffic
Links for the day
As Economies Crumble Free as in Beer Will Matter, Not Just Free as in Freedom/Libre (Libertad)
French regions choosing to embrace Software Freedom
25 Years Ago, an Explanation of How Reducing Free Software to 'Apps' Would Interfere With Freedom Goals
there's nothing unreasonable about it
A List of 63 Known Gemini Clients (Software to Browse Geminispace Content With Gemini Protocol)
Not counting browser plugins for Web browsers
Gemini Links 19/10/2025: "Firma Odin Is Transforming" and Bot Attacks While "AFK"
Links for the day
US Government: 6.1% of Site Visitors Use GNU/Linux
GNU/Linux has a considerable share and it is growing
LLM Slop Could Not Rise to Prominence Without Media Complicity and Artificial Hype
Inane garbage disguised as "journalism"
Why the FSF No Longer Recommends Debian, as Explained by Richard Stallman This Month
some weeks ago
All the Latest Half Dozen Articles by Mehedi Hasan (UbuntuPIT) Only Admit at the End That He's Using LLM Slop
Disclosure is OK, but the practice of using slop is not
The 'Modern' Web of Fake Security and Easy Censorship of Whole Domains
Each year it gets worse
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 18, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, October 18, 2025