The European Patent Office (EPO) Has a Very Profound Corruption Issue, Far More Urgent an Issue Than Pronouns
The Central Staff Committee of the European Patent Office (EPO) has circulated among staff a rather long document. In a message entitled "Our report and opinions: Public Holidays 2026, SSP Regulations, Counselling" it spoke about a virtual 'meeting' (read: online chat) with the nepotists who destroy the EPO and break all sorts of laws in pursuit of money, led by António Campinos and the litigation industry he is fronting for, along with monopolists (their biggest clients).
I've read through the document and something struck a nerve; the EPO's corrupt management may be leveraging somewhat of a marginal issue - not the big issues - as that acts like a smokescreen and it's widely known that shallower moral issues can be a PR tactic (diversionary tactics), boiling down to flags while women at the EPO are discriminated against. There's also stuff like whether an individual person is "they" (they say this causes actual confusion and I can confirm I saw that in my workplace; it makes communication baffling and imprecise).
We're reproducing the documents as HTML, GemText and plain text:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du PersonnelMunich, 05-05-2025
sc25028cpReport on the GCC meeting of
27 March 2025Dear Colleagues,
The General Consultative Committee (GCC) met by videoconference on 27 March 2025. 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:
• Circular No. 433: Public holidays 2026 – for consultation GCC/DOC 3/2025
• Amendments to SSP regulations – for consultation GCC/DOC 4/2025
• Counselling for workplace solutions (pilot) – for information GCC/DOC 5/2025
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 03/2025: Circular No. 433: Public holidays 2026
Every year, a document like this appears on the agenda of the GCC. This year’s document essentially covers three points. Firstly, the list of public holidays applicable to each place of employment is laid down, which the President is authorised to do under Article 59(2)(b) ServRegs after consulting the GCC. Secondly, the President decides whether to close the Office between Christmas and New Year, a matter on which he has granted himself discretion under Rule 4 of Circular No. 22. Thirdly, he orders that staff take compulsory leave on the Office closure days.
The CSC members of the GCC observe that the note to the GCC on Circular No. 433 contained in this document presents further justification for the proposal to close the Office between Christmas 2026 and New Year 2027 compared to the reasoning in GCC/DOC 12/2024 for the corresponding closure in 2025. The note presents for example an observation that more than 60% of staff – up to 75% of staff in 2025 – across the Office take one or more additional leave days following the Office closing days. Furthermore, the proposed circular shall regulate the public holidays for the year 2026, while similar circulars and documents on the agenda of the GCC regulated them for the years before. Therefore, the CSC members of the CSC conclude that these regulatory measures are new decisions and not only of a confirmatory nature.
The 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. The President’s directive to close the Office during the period between Christmas and New Year, and specifically the imposition of compulsory leave during this time remains the focal point of the ongoing dispute.
List of public holidays in 2026 applicable to each place of employment
The CSC members of the GCC are pleased to observe that the proposed list duly incorporates the official regional or national holidays applicable to Berlin, Munich, The Hague and Vienna1. It is noticeable that the list for Brussels does not include 11 November 2026 (a public holiday in Belgium). However, 3 April 2026 is included, even though it is not a public holiday in Belgium. These special provisions, tailored to local circumstances and business needs, are deemed appropriate.
It is 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 2026 is Brussels as well as Vienna.
____
1 The President did not go unnoticed when he took up the suggestion of the CSC members of the GCC from the previous year and correctly labelled 1 May 2026.
Office closure days between Christmas 2026 and New Year 2027
The CSC members of the GCC hold a negative view regarding the proposed closure days on 28, 29 and 30 December 2026. 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 required himself to exercise annually under Rule 4 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. 433, for example, are a mere repetition of the points already listed more than twelve years ago in GAC/DOC 5/2012. The assumption that “[m]ost staff would be on holiday during this period anyway” is based on the observation that “in the last couple of years, more than 60% – up to 75% of staff in 2025 – across the Office take one or more additional leave days following the Office closing days”. This assumption is incorrect if only because compulsory leave was also ordered during the Office closing days in those years. Despite the numerous staff surveys that have been carried out in the meantime, there has never been an item on this question. This justification thus risks circular reasoning.
The inadequate exercise of discretion is further demonstrated by the fact that the statement that the closure days allow “the Office to make cost savings and reduce energy consumption” could not be substantiated in numerical terms. Decisions must be based on verifiable and objective criteria. A mere qualitative statement lacks the precision necessary to assess the actual extent and impact of the reduction. Without measurable data, the decision is arbitrary and potentially violating the principles of good administration. Even if minor savings were made, these would have to 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 inappropriate and misleading. The practice is that all days between Christmas and New Year are usually set as public holidays for staff of the European Union serving in Brussels and Luxembourg. This is exemplary shown for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 by the Commission Decisions 2021/C 201 I/02, 2022/C 440/05, C/2024/2219, for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025. However, this is not the case on the disputed days of 28, 29 and 30 December 2026 at the Office. These days are not listed as public holidays for staff of the EPO. To the contrary, staff shall take compulsory leave on these days.
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 insufficiently substantiated reasoning, lack of proportional analysis and inappropriate comparisons, all of which undermine the proper application of discretion in this matter.
Compulsory leave on the Office closure days
The closure of the Office does not automatically imply that the staff has to take any form of leave (e.g. annual leave). In particular, the New Ways of Working permit more flexibility to staff concerning their working arrangements. According to Article 5 of Circular No. 419, the Office may also request or instruct employees to telework in exceptional cases. The regulation in Rule 4 of Circular No. 22 that “[s]taff shall take any type of authorised leave during such closures” has already been weakened in the previous years by the wording “staff shall decide at their discretion which type of authorised leave to take on these […] compulsory closure days” (see for example Circular Nos. 424, 428, 431, which regulate closure periods for 2023 to 2025). The repetition of this wording in the proposed Circular No. 433 emphasises that the regulation of Circular No. 22 must not be understood in the strict sense.
Section 3 of the note to the GCC on Circular No. 433 uses an even weaker wording: “staff will be requested to take any form of leave (e.g., annual leave, flexitime or compensation hours)”. Upon request, the administration further explained during the meeting that staff would be “invited” to take leave during the Office closure days.
The CSC members of the GCC therefore recommend that the administration emphasises in their invitation that taking any form of leave during the Office closure days is on a purely voluntary basis. The note to the GCC on Circular No. 433 explains in section 3 that in the event that a staff member does not register leave, compensation hours will be deducted for the Office closure days. The question as to whether the President is authorised to deduct compensation hours in such cases is still pending before the Tribunal. The CSC members of the GCC thus propose that such deductions, if at all, be made only on a provisional basis pending the outcome of the litigation.
Constructive proposals
The CSC members of the GCC have a great interest in avoiding further disputes. Various alternative suggestions, some of them already brought forward in recent years, are made.
• That the President add the days 28, 29 and 30 December 2026 to the list of public holidays to be observed in 2026 at all places of employment. This would be consistent with the practice on public holidays for officials and other servants of the European Union serving in Brussels and Luxembourg in the previous years. The Office could then be closed between Christmas 2026 and New Year 2027.
• That the President add at least one and a half of the days 28, 29 or 30 December 2026 to the list of public holidays. This would serve as a symbolic gesture of compromise.
• That the President protect the staff who take authorised leave on 28, 29 or 30 December 2026 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. 433 concludes with the remark that it “will be published more than a year prior to the planned Office closure in 2026”. 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 possibility of early leave planning is essential, particularly when Office closure is framed as above.
The CSC members of the GCC, however, observe that it is currently only possible to use the booking tool to request leave for this year 2025, but not for next year 2026. Regardless of the discussion about the Office closure days and compulsory 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, at the latest from 1 July 2025 onwards. 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 reiterate 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 2027 should be preceded by a constructive discussion in the context of the ongoing social dialogue.
The CSC members of the GCC
Amendments to SSP regulations - GCC/DOC 04/2025
Opinion submitted by group 1 of CSC members in the GCCDocuments on the Agenda:
1. Comparative table: Overview of all regulatory changes.
2. CA document: Proposed amendments to service regulations for submission to the AC of June and to the BFC in May.
3. Circular No. 317: Updates on SSP lump sum and editorial change in the number of decimals in the table on the investment allocation.
4. Circular No. 22: Adjustment related to parental and family leave regulation.
The administration has claimed that the intention of the amendments proposed is to clarify that the salary savings plan and the lump sum payment associated with it is a salary, and therefore not subject to national taxation under the protocol on privileges and immunities. This is contrary to pensions which, according to the same protocol, are subject to national taxation.
However, Staff Representation stresses that to fully understand the changes introduced by document GCC DOC 04 2025, all relevant documents and reports, such as tax advisors’ reports and the outcome of the comprehensive review mentioned in the CA document, should have been made available to all GCC members. These documents are crucial for comprehending the proposed amendments. Regrettably, Staff Representation was denied access to these documents. Additionally, the Staff Representation was provided with the final version of GCC DOC 04 2025 prior to the GCC, but not prior to any of the three technical meetings that took place to discuss the amendments, meaning the opportunity for discussion of the final document was limited. We would appreciate a more transparent approach to social dialogue, particularly on this sensitive topic for NPS members.
We note the several amendments proposed in the document which are unclear, and their scope is therefore to be clarified.
On the specific elements, we note at least four main aspects that have been modified:
a. The replacement of the term “portion of remuneration” with “lump sum”
b. The changes on SSP deductions for social security
c. Elimination of voluntary contributions to the SSP
d. Payment modalities of SSP on termination of service.
a. “portion of remuneration” vs “portion of salary” vs “lump sum”
The scope of the amendments replacing the term "portion of remuneration" with "lump sum" in various Articles (e.g., 46, 62, 65, 94, 83a, etc.) is somewhat unclear and raises questions. Initially, the term “portion of salary” had been used to replace the current “portion of remuneration”, with the explanation from the administration during the meeting that this was to reiterate that the payout from the SSP is a salary and therefore not subject to national taxation. In a second version of the amendments, this term was again replaced with “lump sum”, with the reasoning from the administration that the SSP payout comprises three portions – 1/3 contributions from the staff member, 2/3 contributions from the Office, and also the investment returns. However, no explanation
was given as to how this new amendment to the terminology, specifically now missing the word “salary”, still managed to achieve the goal of reducing taxation risk. In addition, we were not informed whether the tax advisors were re-consulted on this change of wording. In addition, we note that the SSP was designed from the outset to be an integral, inseparable part of the new pension scheme’s architecture. The Office was invited to conduct a comprehensive review of the pension scheme architecture to align with the principles of duty of care. Thus, the principle of separation of SSP from pension needs careful consideration.
b. The deductions for social security Article 83a and 83b ServRegs
Article 83a (5) ServRegs was amended in at least three aspects:
1. “entitled to pension” vs “entitled to health care”
The first change concerned the question of when a reduction shall be made, now encompassing cases previously unaffected. In particular the terms entitled to pension was replaced with entitled to health care, having several negative consequences for staff in the NPS scheme. In particular we note that the entitlement to health care is completely different to the entitlement to pension, and only occasionally coincide. This change will have a significant impact on whether colleagues are able to choose to use the provisions of Article 83a(2), which gives the right for employees who leave the Office, by their own choice or because their contract is not extended, to be covered by our healthcare insurance for up to 12 months. However, if that coverage requires the full deduction of the SSP to be made, the exorbitant cost of the limited-time coverage would mean the provision cannot be used by NPS members. No solution was offered for this issue.
2. “He is” vs “they” vs “the employee, their spouse or dependant”
To understand the impact of this amendment it is important to look at the previous versions of the article.
Art. 83a (5) ServRegs in the Codex 2022 recites:
Where applicable, the portion of remuneration owed on termination of service as a result of compulsory participation in the salary savings plan shall be reduced by the amount of the healthcare insurance contribution, a third of which shall be borne by the employee, provided that he is entitled to a pension.
Following a revision of the Codex to achieve a gender-neutral formulation Art. 83a (5) ServRegs became in the Codex 2023:
Where applicable, the portion of remuneration owed on termination of service as a result of compulsory participation in the salary savings plan shall be reduced by the amount of the healthcare insurance contribution, a third of which shall be borne by the employee, provided that they are entitled to a pension.
Now with the proposed amendment the “they” is not a single person anymore but includes spouse or dependant. i.e. survivors and orphans.
Art. 83a (5) ServRegs (proposed) recites:
Where applicable, lump sum owed on termination of service as a result of compulsory participation in the salary savings plan shall be reduced by a third of the amount of the total healthcare insurance contribution, a third of which shall be borne by the employee, provided that the employee, their spouse or dependant is entitled to the healthcare insurance under this article.
These changes are obviously at the detriment of staff in the NPS as they enlarge the group called to pay the social security deductions, creating a number of additional unfair situations (e.g. an orphan paying the EPO healthcare contributions on the SSP is offered coverage only as long as they have dependent status).
The situation of the orphans was pointed out to the administration as a blatant example of the inconsistencies created by these amendments. No solution was offered for this issue.
3. “Portion of remuneration” vs “lump sum”
The third change concerns the total amount eligible for deduction. Under the current terms, deductions were to be limited to portion of remuneration, and now the proposed regulation defines a deduction on the lump sum. Once again, this change appears to disadvantage staff.
Furthermore, the fact that deductions from the SSP lump sum are required is inconsistent with the fact that no allowances are provided. For example, the household allowance is paid on monthly pensions (OPS and capped NPS monthly pensions). However, household allowance is not paid on the SSP, raising questions about the coherence of the approach.
Similar considerations apply to Article 83b ServRegs.
c. Elimination of voluntary contribution to the SSP
The current proposal eliminates the option to voluntarily participate in the SSP from the entire ServRegs. Although this option has been available since inception, it was never implemented, and additional voluntary contributions to the SSP were never considered feasible.
However, there are articles in the ServRegs that regulate optional participation in the SSP, specifically Article 43 (Military Service), Article 44 (Leave on Personal Grounds), and Article 44a (Parental Leave). The new formulation abolishes the possibility of participating in the SSP during military service and leave on personal grounds.
Additionally, the new formulation makes participation in the SSP during parental leave mandatory. This change is seen as neutral for NPS members, with a limited impact, as the historical opting-out rate was low, cited as around 6% in the CA doc.
d. Payment modalities of SSP on termination of service.
We note that the change in payment modalities includes an automatic switch to a more conservative investment strategy upon termination of service. Specifically, SSP plan members will be transitioned into a cash-like investment during the final period of their service, which can last up to 12 months. This measure is intended to minimize their exposure to market volatility and protect their accumulated funds as they approach the payout date.
However, plan members are not obligated to follow this default strategy. An opt-out option is available for those who prefer to remain in a different investment strategy until the SSP payout date. This flexibility allows members to tailor their investment approach according to their individual risk tolerance and financial goals. For more detailed information, Circular 317 outlines the investment strategy and glide path available to SSP plan members.
Finally, the amendment to Article 4 of Circular 317, that defined that the due SSP amount will be paid out completely while the staff member remains in active service as a final salary is appreciated and an improvement on the current practice.
Conclusion
There are various consequences of separating completely the SSP from pension scheme for NPS members. These need to be considered carefully by staff representatives that have been tasked with protecting the rights of staff. Some may be beneficial, such as lowering the risk of taxation of the SSP, but some may also be detrimental, such as undermining the promised equivalence in benefits between the two pension schemes.
Since we have not been given the possibility to read the reports from the tax advisors, let alone pose any questions to the experts on the matter, we are unfortunately unable to judge the degree by which the taxation risk would be reduced by the amendments proposed. Further, the comprehensive study referred to in the CA document was also not made available to us. Without access to all relevant information and a more open dialogue, we are unable to evaluate the implications of the proposed changes adequately.
In addition, some of the amendments clearly have no bearing on the taxation, but rather are amendments which increase the number of staff which must pay a portion of the lump sum to the Office, despite the fact that these deductions may be hugely disproportionate compared to the insurance coverage received in return.
Staff Representation remains fully committed to advocating for a fair pension scheme for all colleagues.
Opinion submitted by group 1 of CSC members in the GCC
Amendments to SSP regulations - GCC/DOC 04/2025
Opinion submitted by group 2 of CSC members in the GCCThe undersigning CSC members of the GCC note that three meetings of the GCC SSPR were held in preparation of the submitted document. These meetings took place on 13 February 2025, 26 February 2025 and 10 March 2025. The constructive working atmosphere during these meetings is greatly appreciated. Some proposals submitted by the staff representatives were taken up and can be found in the document presented.
The proposed amendments to Articles 43, 44 and 44a ServRegs and to the Implementing Rules to the ServRegs consist of minor terminological adjustments and clarifications of provisions referencing the Salary Savings Plan. The undersigning CSC members of the GCC are convinced that the amendments enhance clarity and consistency of the regulations. They contribute to better reflect the nature of the Salary Savings Plan as a deferred salary plan.
To illustrate this, reference is made to the proposed editorial change to the Implementing Rule to Article 65(3) ServRegs. Section A.(3) of this provision is proposed for deletion. As the Administrative Council decided in Article 10 of CA/D 3/19 to suspend additional voluntary contributions to the Salary Savings Plan, the deletion of the corresponding passage is consistent. The proposed editorial changes to sections B.(1) and B.(2) of the regulation contribute to clarity. As contributions to the Salary Savings Plan are compulsory for members of the NPS and members of the OPS do not participate in it, no further distinction is necessary.
Members of the Salary Savings Plan may have different needs with regard to volatility and return expectations in the period shortly before the payment of the lump sum with their last monthly salary. The undersigning CSC members of the GCC therefore acknowledge and appreciate the option foreseen in the proposed amendment to Article 3 of Circular No. 317.
Furthermore, the clarifications added to the table on the investment allocation for the investment horizons in Circular No. 317 by listing two decimal places in the percentages is understood to provide legal certainty. The numerical relevance is considerable in view of the expected amounts of the relevant assets. The fact that the definition of the conversion date at the end of Article 3 of Circular No. 317 has been clarified also contributes to legal certainty.
The proposed regulation in Article 83a(5) ServRegs that the lump sum owed on termination of service as a result of compulsory participation in the Salary Savings Plan shall be reduced by a third of the amount of the total healthcare insurance contribution, provided that the employee, their spouse or dependant is entitled to the healthcare insurance under this article follows the principle that contributions to social security schemes based on the SSP lump sum should be paid only by those covered by the social security schemes after termination of service.
The undersigning CSC members of the GCC take note of this clarification. It emphasises the principle of reciprocity. The financial impact of the proposed amendments is estimated mostly cost-neutral and below EUR 20.000. The reasoning behind this is comprehensible.
As a final remark, the undersigning CSC members of the GCC would like to reiterate that they consider constructive and trustful discussions on sensitive topics important. The ongoing social dialogue is of high relevance for both the staff and the Office.
Opinion submitted by group 2 of CSC members in the GCC
Comments relating to document GCC/DOC 05/2025
The aim presented in the slides is the “fully external and impartial support with workplace challenges”, hence, the provision of service from professional counsellors regarding workplace conflicts and workplace issues. The activities and skills expected from the external counsellors, as presented in the slides, are at the moment fully covered by our internal Confidential Counsellors.
The internal Confidential Counsellors are recognised by staff and by managers as impartial, are bound to confidentiality, have all the skills presented in the slides, have years of experience and additionally know the office from inside. Managers and staff trust them. Therefore, they have a high recognised value in amicable conflict resolution.
To provide additional external counselling is considered by the office as being important for the staff who don’t feel comfortable addressing colleagues (the internal CCs) and for the staff who wants to remain anonymous inside the office. We also find that this could be an important reason to provide additional external counselling.
We were assured during the meeting that the external counselling service is additional to the internal amicable resolution. It is not intended to replace and to externalise the internal amicable conflict resolution. It was stated, that should the pilot not be successful the external service will not be continued. The success criteria applied for evaluating the pilot will be the same as the ones applied in HR for services. The Ombuds Office will be responsible for the onboarding of the external counsellors.
The external counsellors will provide their services only online. Confidentiality is already part within the contract with Pulso for the EAP services. Hence, the same will apply also for the counselling services provided by Pulso.
As an additional service for our colleagues, we consider the initiative as positive and support it. We will monitor both, the handling of the internal confidential counsellors and the activities relating to the onboarding of the external counsellors.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 03/2025:
Circular No. 433: Public holidays 2026Every year, a document like this appears on the agenda of the GCC. This year’s document essentially covers three points. Firstly, the list of public holidays applicable to each place of employment is laid down, which the President is authorised to do under Article 59(2)(b) ServRegs after consulting the GCC. Secondly, the President decides whether to close the Office between Christmas and New Year, a matter on which he has granted himself discretion under Rule 4 of Circular No. 22. Thirdly, he orders that staff take compulsory leave on the Office closure days.
The CSC members of the GCC observe that the note to the GCC on Circular No. 433 contained in this document presents further justification for the proposal to close the Office between Christmas 2026 and New Year 2027 compared to the reasoning in GCC/DOC 12/2024 for the corresponding closure in 2025. The note presents for example an observation that more than 60% of staff – up to 75% of staff in 2025 – across the Office take one or more additional leave days following the Office closing days. Furthermore, the proposed circular shall regulate the public holidays for the year 2026, while similar circulars and documents on the agenda of the GCC regulated them for the years before. Therefore, the CSC members of the CSC conclude that these regulatory measures are new decisions and not only of a confirmatory nature.
The 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. The President’s directive to close the Office during the period between Christmas and New Year, and specifically the imposition of compulsory leave during this time remains the focal point of the ongoing dispute.
List of public holidays in 2026 applicable to each place of employment
The CSC members of the GCC are pleased to observe that the proposed list duly incorporates the official regional or national holidays applicable to Berlin, Munich, The Hague and Vienna1. It is noticeable that the list for Brussels does not include 11 November 2026 (a public holiday in Belgium). However, 3 April 2026 is included, even though it is not a public holiday in Belgium. These special provisions, tailored to local circumstances and business needs, are deemed appropriate.
It is 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 2026 is Brussels as well as Vienna.
_______
1 The President did not go unnoticed when he took up the suggestion of the CSC members of the GCC from the previous year and correctly labelled 1 May 2026.
Office closure days between Christmas 2026 and New Year 2027
The CSC members of the GCC hold a negative view regarding the proposed closure days on 28, 29 and 30 December 2026. 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 required himself to exercise annually under Rule 4 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. 433, for example, are a mere repetition of the points already listed more than twelve years ago in GAC/DOC 5/2012. The assumption that “[m]ost staff would be on holiday during this period anyway” is based on the observation that “in the last couple of years, more than 60% – up to 75% of staff in 2025 – across the Office take one or more additional leave days following the Office closing days”. This assumption is incorrect if only because compulsory leave was also ordered during the Office closing days in those years. Despite the numerous staff surveys that have been carried out in the meantime, there has never been an item on this question. This justification thus risks circular reasoning.
The inadequate exercise of discretion is further demonstrated by the fact that the statement that the closure days allow “the Office to make cost savings and reduce energy consumption” could not be substantiated in numerical terms. Decisions must be based on verifiable and objective criteria. A mere qualitative statement lacks the precision necessary to assess the actual extent and impact of the reduction. Without measurable data, the decision is arbitrary and potentially violating the principles of good administration. Even if minor savings were made, these would have to 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 inappropriate and misleading. The practice is that all days between Christmas and New Year are usually set as public holidays for staff of the European Union serving in Brussels and Luxembourg. This is exemplary shown for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 by the Commission Decisions 2021/C 201 I/02, 2022/C 440/05, C/2024/2219, for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025. However, this is not the case on the disputed days of 28, 29 and 30 December 2026 at the Office. These days are not listed as public holidays for staff of the EPO. To the contrary, staff shall take compulsory leave on these days.
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 insufficiently substantiated reasoning, lack of proportional analysis and inappropriate comparisons, all of which undermine the proper application of discretion in this matter.
Compulsory leave on the Office closure days
The closure of the Office does not automatically imply that the staff has to take any form of leave (e.g. annual leave). In particular, the New Ways of Working permit more flexibility to staff concerning their working arrangements. According to Article 5 of Circular No. 419, the Office may also request or instruct employees to telework in exceptional cases. The regulation in Rule 4 of Circular No. 22 that “[s]taff shall take any type of authorised leave during such closures” has already been weakened in the previous years by the wording “staff shall decide at their discretion which type of authorised leave to take on these […] compulsory closure days” (see for example Circular Nos. 424, 428, 431, which regulate closure periods for 2023 to 2025). The repetition of this wording in the proposed Circular No. 433 emphasises that the regulation of Circular No. 22 must not be understood in the strict sense.
Section 3 of the note to the GCC on Circular No. 433 uses an even weaker wording: “staff will be requested to take any form of leave (e.g., annual leave, flexitime or compensation hours)”. Upon request, the administration further explained during the meeting that staff would be “invited” to take leave during the Office closure days.
The CSC members of the GCC therefore recommend that the administration emphasises in their invitation that taking any form of leave during the Office closure days is on a purely voluntary basis. The note to the GCC on Circular No. 433 explains in section 3 that in the event that a staff member does not register leave, compensation hours will be deducted for the Office closure days. The question as to whether the President is authorised to deduct compensation hours in such cases is still pending before the Tribunal. The CSC members of the GCC thus propose that such deductions, if at all, be made only on a provisional basis pending the outcome of the litigation.
Constructive proposals
The CSC members of the GCC have a great interest in avoiding further disputes. Various alternative suggestions, some of them already brought forward in recent years, are made.
• That the President add the days 28, 29 and 30 December 2026 to the list of public holidays to be observed in 2026 at all places of employment. This would be consistent with the practice on public holidays for officials and other servants of the European Union serving in Brussels and Luxembourg in the previous years. The Office could then be closed between Christmas 2026 and New Year 2027.
• That the President add at least one and a half of the days 28, 29 or 30 December 2026 to the list of public holidays. This would serve as a symbolic gesture of compromise.
• That the President protect the staff who take authorised leave on 28, 29 or 30 December 2026 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. 433 concludes with the remark that it “will be published more than a year prior to the planned Office closure in 2026”. 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 possibility of early leave planning is essential, particularly when Office closure is framed as above.
The CSC members of the GCC, however, observe that it is currently only possible to use the booking tool to request leave for this year 2025, but not for next year 2026. Regardless of the discussion about the Office closure days and compulsory 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, at the latest from 1 July 2025 onwards. 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 reiterate 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 2027 should be preceded by a constructive discussion in the context of the ongoing social dialogue.
The CSC members of the GCC
[...]
Amendments to SSP regulations - GCC/DOC 04/2025
Opinion submitted by group 2 of CSC members in the GCCThe undersigning CSC members of the GCC note that three meetings of the GCC SSPR were held in preparation of the submitted document. These meetings took place on 13 February 2025, 26 February 2025 and 10 March 2025. The constructive working atmosphere during these meetings is greatly appreciated. Some proposals submitted by the staff representatives were taken up and can be found in the document presented.
The proposed amendments to Articles 43, 44 and 44a ServRegs and to the Implementing Rules to the ServRegs consist of minor terminological adjustments and clarifications of provisions referencing the Salary Savings Plan. The undersigning CSC members of the GCC are convinced that the amendments enhance clarity and consistency of the regulations. They contribute to better reflect the nature of the Salary Savings Plan as a deferred salary plan.
To illustrate this, reference is made to the proposed editorial change to the Implementing Rule to Article 65(3) ServRegs. Section A.(3) of this provision is proposed for deletion. As the Administrative Council decided in Article 10 of CA/D 3/19 to suspend additional voluntary contributions to the Salary Savings Plan, the deletion of the corresponding passage is consistent. The proposed editorial changes to sections B.(1) and B.(2) of the regulation contribute to clarity. As contributions to the Salary Savings Plan are compulsory for members of the NPS and members of the OPS do not participate in it, no further distinction is necessary.
Members of the Salary Savings Plan may have different needs with regard to volatility and return expectations in the period shortly before the payment of the lump sum with their last monthly salary. The undersigning CSC members of the GCC therefore acknowledge and appreciate the option foreseen in the proposed amendment to Article 3 of Circular No. 317.
Furthermore, the clarifications added to the table on the investment allocation for the investment horizons in Circular No. 317 by listing two decimal places in the percentages is understood to provide legal certainty. The numerical relevance is considerable in view of the expected amounts of the relevant assets. The fact that the definition of the conversion date at the end of Article 3 of Circular No. 317 has been clarified also contributes to legal certainty.
The proposed regulation in Article 83a(5) ServRegs that the lump sum owed on termination of service as a result of compulsory participation in the Salary Savings Plan shall be reduced by a third of the amount of the total healthcare insurance contribution, provided that the employee, their spouse or dependant is entitled to the healthcare insurance under this article follows the principle that contributions to social security schemes based on the SSP lump sum should be paid only by those covered by the social security schemes after termination of service.
The undersigning CSC members of the GCC take note of this clarification. It emphasises the principle of reciprocity. The financial impact of the proposed amendments is estimated mostly cost-neutral and below EUR 20.000. The reasoning behind this is comprehensible.
As a final remark, the undersigning CSC members of the GCC would like to reiterate that they consider constructive and trustful discussions on sensitive topics important. The ongoing social dialogue is of high relevance for both the staff and the Office.
Opinion submitted by group 2 of CSC members in the GCC
Comments relating to document GCC/DOC 05/2025
The aim presented in the slides is the “fully external and impartial support with workplace challenges”, hence, the provision of service from professional counsellors regarding workplace conflicts and workplace issues. The activities and skills expected from the external counsellors, as presented in the slides, are at the moment fully covered by our internal Confidential Counsellors.
The internal Confidential Counsellors are recognised by staff and by managers as impartial, are bound to confidentiality, have all the skills presented in the slides, have years of experience and additionally know the office from inside. Managers and staff trust them. Therefore, they have a high recognised value in amicable conflict resolution.
To provide additional external counselling is considered by the office as being important for the staff who don’t feel comfortable addressing colleagues (the internal CCs) and for the staff who wants to remain anonymous inside the office. We also find that this could be an important reason to provide additional external counselling.
We were assured during the meeting that the external counselling service is additional to the internal amicable resolution. It is not intended to replace and to externalise the internal amicable conflict resolution. It was stated, that should the pilot not be successful the external service will not be continued. The success criteria applied for evaluating the pilot will be the same as the ones applied in HR for services. The Ombuds Office will be responsible for the onboarding of the external counsellors.
The external counsellors will provide their services only online. Confidentiality is already part within the contract with Pulso for the EAP services. Hence, the same will apply also for the counselling services provided by Pulso.
As an additional service for our colleagues, we consider the initiative as positive and support it. We will monitor both, the handling of the internal confidential counsellors and the activities relating to the onboarding of the external counsellors.
The CSC members of the GCC
There is repetition in the above document (maybe intentional), but that last part says "the undersigning CSC members of the GCC would like to reiterate that they consider constructive and trustful discussions on sensitive topics important."
That's probably because they illegally pass rules without bothering to consult staff.
The above document is soft-spoken and reeks of defeatism. Nevertheless, it is the GCC, not the union (SUEPO) and after years of union-busting people are afraid to leak or speak out.
See the following recent publication: EPO Likely Breaking the Law Yet Again, This Time by Using Slop for Patents (to Lower Costs While Producing Monopolies That Cause Ruinous Lawsuits) █