The EPO's General Consultative Committee (GCC) Meeting Last Month Sought to Remove Genders (But It's Nearly Impossible in French and German)
This is so much more important than tackling EPO corruption anyway...
AS promised yesterday in the morning, today (early hours of the day) we publish some new material from inside the EPO. It's in HTML, GemText, and plain text.
In the publication below, from the GCC meeting of last month (the publication itself is dated yesterday), the first item on the agenda tackles gender roles (like assumption about what a mother and father do career-wise) or false assumptions about who works at the EPO or who stays in the house etc. This isn't about gender-phobia, although blurring away of genders (or gendered words) typically gets unnecessarily associated with (or tangled up in) feminism. Put another way, back in the days women fought stereotypes about what sorts of jobs women are (or were) expected to do and later on came people who rejected biology and wanted to pretend to themselves genders don't really exist (the more radical ones tried to impose this belief on everybody else). This means that this agenda item can provoke and stir up a controversy (unlike decades ago).
Languages vary; they're not just a case of swapping one word with another or moving letters around, so some languages cannot be easily translated onto others and some have words that are gender-neutral, some do not (impeding translations even further or making lossy translations). Some have plurality built onto words, or even plurality, gender (and even tense!) built in. So it's a tough task. At the EPO, 3 languages are officially supported: English, German, and French. Those aren't very dissimilar and many people can speak (and thus convert between) all three.
In the case of the EPO, they seem to be asking for language that makes no assumption about whether a man or a woman works at the EPO, but it's still curious because there are so many major problems at the EPO; this one seems like a minor distraction and perhaps one that suits corrupt management (misdirection of anger). Monopolistic and violent corporations - and their front groups, such as the Linux Foundation - use this as a PR trick.
Here is the full publication:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du PersonnelMunich, 27-11-2024
sc24065cpReport on the GCC meeting of
1 October 2024Dear Colleagues,
The General Consultative Committee (GCC) met by videoconference on 1 October 2024. The following items were on the agenda of the meeting and the CSC members of the GCC raised their concerns and tried to get further clarifications:
• D&I: Gender-neutral language – for consultation GCC/DOC 11/2024
• Circular No. 431: Public Holidays 2025 – for consultation GCC/DOC 12/2024
• Review of Circular No. 317: Investment strategies and procedures for the Salary Saving Plan (SSP) – for consultation GCC/DOC 13/2024
• Adjustments to the Office’s organisational structure (D542) – for information GCC/DOC 14/2024
The detailed and reasoned comments and opinions by the CSC members of the GCC are annexed to this paper.
The Central Staff Committee
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 11/2024:
D&I: Gender-neutral languageThe service regulations and implementing rules have been amended such that the English version is now gender neutral. This has been a longstanding request from staff members who expect to be included and represented by our texts.
As is argued in the document, it is a rather easy task to use gender neutral language in English. We thank the administration for having made these necessary amendments to our codex, which in the most part amounts to replacing he, him, his, with they, them, their and replacing chairman with chair. We trust that the language department have checked all the straightforward amendments, that all gendered terms have been identified and neutralised, and that no errors have been introduced. We did highlight two terms that remain in the document, which should also be amended: a reference to “wife” in Article 59 and to “father” in Article 44a. These were noted and will be amended.
Regarding the French and German versions of the codex, the staff representation finds it rather unfortunate that a different approach has been taken. Here, only a declaration stating that the generic masculine covers all genders will be included. The administration argued that gender neutralising the text would “require significant rewording” which may risk the clarity and integrity. The staff representation is of the opinion that the effort is worthwhile, and at least some parts of the text, where the gender neutralisation is possible, should have been identified and amended, rather than giving up altogether. These different approaches to the three official languages of the text give the impression of a non-equal importance of the official languages of the EPO, in contrast to the provision in Article 14 EPC. We also asked whether other options have been considered. For example, since the French and German language versions are to remain gendered, one could be amended to use female as the default gender with the other remaining male default, giving more balance to the two gendered versions, without any reduction in readability of the text. The administration replied that this would not be done, with little reasoning as to why not.
On the timing of amending the English text, we note that UK government legislation has been written in gender-neutral language since 2007. Therefore, this is a very late adoption of a simple principle. In addition, considering the low amount of effort and zero costs needed to implement this change, gender neutralisation can be seen as low hanging fruit. We hope that bigger issues will also be tackled and that we see an improvement on this front in terms of implementation timeline.
Finally, regarding the EPC text, we asked whether there were any plans to propose a de- gendering of the EPC, with the first step being the convening of a conference of ministers (Article 4a EPC). The administration said that this was not the case, and only the texts that can be amended by the Administrative Council are planned to be tackled.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 12/2024:
Circular No. 431: Public Holidays 2025The CSC members of the GCC express their regret that the annual circular on public holidays has been a recurrent subject of litigation over the course of several years. Although the holidays themselves are seldom contested, the President’s directive to close the Office during the period between Christmas and New Year, and specifically the imposition of mandatory leave during this time remains the focal point of the ongoing dispute.
The CSC members of the GCC are pleased to observe that the proposed lists duly incorporate the official regional or national holidays applicable to the respective places of employment. Since 2020, the commendable practice of adopting local holiday regulations has been reinstated. The special provisions for Brussels, tailored to local circumstances and business needs, are deemed appropriate. As an aside, it should be noted that the official name of the 1 May public holiday in Austria is “Staatsfeiertag” (see Art. 1 § 1 FtrG).
It is further noted with approval that the longstanding practice of providing additional annual leave to staff in places of employment with fewer public holidays continues to be implemented. This practice is aligned with the location observing the highest number of public holidays, which in 2025 is Munich.
However, the CSC members of the GCC hold a negative view regarding the proposed closure days on 29 and 30 December 2025. Unlike previous years, the current document offers certain statements explaining why the Office is allegedly to be closed on these days. Nevertheless, this explanation is deemed insufficient to demonstrate a proper exercise of the discretionary power that the President is required to exercise annually under Rule 4(b) of Circular No. 22 should he wish to close the Office between Christmas and New Year.
The first six points mentioned in section 1 of the note to the GCC on Circular No. 431, for example, are a mere repetition of the points already listed more than twelve years ago in GAC/DOC 5/2012. There is now even more speculation that “[m]ost staff would be on holiday during this period anyway”. Despite the numerous staff surveys that have been carried out in the meantime, there has never been an item on this question. The fact that staff take some form of leave (e.g., annual leave) on the days between Christmas and New Year is due to the corresponding order that staff have repeatedly received for more than twelve years now. To cite this as a justification is a classic circular argument.
As a further example of the inadequate exercise of discretion, it should be noted that the statement that the closure days allow “the Office to make cost savings and reduce energy consumption” is also not further substantiated by facts. And even if minor savings are made, these must be seen in relation to the Office’s operating section surpluses, which now exceed EUR 500 million annually.
The comparison with the practice at the European institutions and other international organisations is even inappropriate and misleading. According to Commission Decision C/2024/2219, all days between 24 and 31 December 2025 are public holidays for staff of the European Union serving in Brussels and Luxembourg. However, this is not the case on the disputed days of 29 and 30 December 2025 at the Office.
In conclusion, the CSC members of the GCC find that the President has not duly exercised his discretionary power in determining the Office closure days. The examples provided demonstrate speculative reasoning, disproportionate considerations and inappropriate comparisons, all of which undermine the proper application of discretion in this matter.
Furthermore, it has to be added that even the closure of the Office does not automatically imply that the staff has to take any form of leave (e.g. annual leave). If staff follows a corresponding request to take leave, this amounts to a deduction of authorised leave days, which are thus no longer at the disposal of staff. While Article 59(2)(b) ServRegs authorises the President in combination with Article 10(2)(a) EPC to lay down the list of public holidays applicable to each place of employment, no authorisation is given to him for the deduction of leave days.
The CSC members of the GCC take note that the wording on the mandatory leave during the Office closure days in the proposed Circular No. 431 is now qualified by the explanatory remarks in section 3 of the note to the GCC. The statement in section 4 of the proposed Circular No. 431 that staff “shall decide at their discretion which type of authorised leave to take on these two compulsory closure days” is introduced as a request to staff (“staff will be requested to take any form of leave (e.g., annual leave), flexitime or compensation hours”). In addition, it is explained in the note to the GCC that “[i]n the event that a staff member does not register leave, compensation hours will be deducted for the Office closure days.” The CSC members of the GCC recommend that it be made very clear in the announcements on the Intranet that staff are requested, but not obliged (!) to take any form of leave themselves on these days.
The above regulation of deducting compensation hours in the event that a staff member does not register leave, amounts to a circumvention of the Service Regulations. Compensation hours are foreseen as an arrangement of working hours, not as additional leave or any form of reduction in working hours. Such a deduction of compensation hours thus results in an order to work overtime. However, an employee may not be required to work overtime except in cases of urgency or exceptional pressure of work (see Article 57(1) ServRegs). A planned closure of the Office can hardly be considered as urgency nor as resulting in exceptional pressure of work. Consequently, the regulations in the document (and the according regulations of Circular No. 22) in this regard travel beyond the ServRegs and the EPC. The CSC members of the GCC conclude that said regulation must therefore be found illegitimate.
The CSC members of the GCC have a great interest in avoiding disputes. Various alternative suggestions, some of them already brought forward in recent years, are made.
• That the President add the days 29 and 30 December 2025 to the list of public holidays to be observed in 2025 at all places of employment. This would be consistent with the practice on public holidays in 2025 for officials and other servants of the European Union serving in Brussels and Luxembourg. The Office could then be closed between Christmas 2025 and New Year 2026.
• That the President add at least one of the days 29 or 30 December 2025 to the list of public holidays. This would symbolically express a willingness to compromise.
• That the President protect the staff who take authorised leave on 29 and 30 December 2025 from managerial orders to work on these days by switching off the remote access to computer systems on these days.
The note to the GCC on Circular No. 431 concludes with the remark that it “will be published more than a year prior to the planned Office closure in 2025”. Staff members would thus be “provided with sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements that suit them best while observing the mandatory closure days.” The CSC members of the GCC, however, have to observe that it is currently only possible to use the booking tool to request leave for this year 2024, but not yet for next year 2025. Regardless of the discussion about the closing days and mandatory leave at the end of the year, it is recommended that it should be possible to request authorised leave for the following year early in advance. This is particularly important for staff who plan their winter or spring vacations.
As a final remark, the CSC members of the GCC would like to state that there is an ongoing interest in finding amicable solutions for the regulation of public holidays and closing days. It is therefore worth considering whether the regulation for 2026 should be preceded by a constructive discussion in a technical working group.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 13/2024 (second version):
Review of Circular No. 317: Investment strategies and procedures
for the Salary Savings Plan (SSP)This GCC consultation on GCC/DOC 13/2024 was preceded by several regular and extraordinary meetings of the In-house Supervisory Committee for Salary Savings Plan Investment Management and Administration (SC SSP). Furthermore, a meeting of the GCC SSPR took place on 18 September 2024. The professional exchange during these meetings and the openness to constructive suggestions is greatly appreciated by the CSC members of the GCC. Of course, such meetings cannot replace the official GCC consultation, in which all relevant documents must be submitted, but they are highly useful for the preparation of the GCC consultation. It is explicitly welcomed that a second version of the GCC/DOC 13/2024 was uploaded to the GCC library on 27 September 2024. As this second version incorporates some proposals in its amendments, the CSC members of the GCC were able to approve the addition of this document to the agenda in accordance with Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the GCC.
For several years in a row, an annual underperformance of many funds offered in the Salary Savings Plan had to be observed compared to the respective benchmarks. The CSC members of the GCC therefore welcome the initiative to switch to products from another fund manager. The new products are designed as passively managed index funds so that a deviation from the underlying reference is less likely.
The detailed table in the Annex to Circular No. 317 makes the implementation of the life- cycle strategy much more transparent than before. This investment strategy is the default option and chosen by most of the colleagues in the New Pension Scheme. It is noted positively that the targets of the life-cycle strategy can now be selected on an annual basis and not just on a five-year basis.
The CSC members of the GCC furthermore observe that the fund LU0826455353 chosen instead of LU0346390197 for the replication of an investment in European bonds shows a slightly poorer performance over one, three and five years. Nevertheless, this is accompanied by lower volatility. Furthermore, it has been observed that only one investment option in the conservative multi-asset strategy is provided compared to two options offered before. Given the very few participants in the discontinued option and the Office’s commitment to consult them individually, however, this is understandable.
The CSC members of the GCC expressly ask the Office to offer information on the envisaged changes in the Salary Savings Plan in writing and in video conferences for the members of the NPS. It is essential that the participants in the Salary Savings Plan are aware of the risks and opportunities of the investment strategies that are offered to them. It should be emphasised that past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
The CSC members of the GCC appreciate that the Office’s expert provided additional clarification concerning the transition costs, which will be borne by the Office. This is in line with the provision in section II.B.(1) of the Implementing Rule to Article 65(3) ServRegs that the Office shall bear the costs of asset management. The staff representatives referred to this provision several times in the previous meetings mentioned above.
Finally, it is recommended that in a future step, participants in the Salary Savings Plan should also be offered investment opportunities that fulfil well-defined ESG criteria. The CSC members of the GCC assume that the constructive discussions in the respective committees and working groups will continue and that this topic will also be included.
The CSC members of the GCC
How many people will read all pages? Most people will probably focus on the language issue.
"It appears that the EPO is trolling their workers to distract from the abuse and crimes," an associate opines, or maybe some representative lost sight of top priorities like whatever the pinkwashing helps distract from.
To be clear, the above issue is a real issue. It just seems like an issue that isn't as urgent or as pressing, at least for us Europeans who don't work for (and get salaries from) the EPO. To us, the avalanche of fake patents is a problem.
The language revisions do not deal with legal terms and don't address EPC violations. We're not talking about whether men get pregnant and all sorts of things like that; it's mostly about women treated as equals. But in an unequal world where corrupt companies receive and then blackmail other companies (irrespective of gender) with millions of patents we need to recognise universal priorities. █