European Monopolies Office (EPO) is Ignoring the Rule of Law, Appeals Committee (ApC) Ignored for the Dictator's Benefit
"Mafia" culture, perched on a high throne
At the EPO, Europe's second-largest organisation which many people didn't even know existed, the Local Staff Committee The Hague (LSCTH) wrote to colleagues earlier this week that the António Campinos administration (Site Manager VP1* to be more exact [1, 2]; it's Stephen 'Microsoft' Rowan) has some further input.
"On 3 November 2025," they reminded colleagues, "the Local Staff Committee The Hague met with the Site Manager VP1, as previously reported."
"The agenda included a point dedicated to the Education and Childcare Allowance Reform, focusing in particular on the fact that, although the Appeals Committee issued several unanimous recommendations in favour of staff, the Office has chosen to implement only a limited number of them."
"Given the limited time available at the meeting, we followed up in writing and are pleased to share the administration’s replies. You will find our questions together with the corresponding answers from the administration in this publication."
Of course someone has already leaked that for us to share:
Staff Committee The Hague
Comité du personnel de La Haye
Personalausschuss Den HaagRijswijk, 24 November 2025
sc25020hpLSCTH meets Site Manager VP1 - Update
Follow-up on the Education and Childcare Allowance Reform
Dear colleagues,
On 3 November 2025, the Local Staff Committee The Hague met with Site Manager VP1, as previously reported. One of the key items on the agenda concerned the Education and Childcare Allowance Reform (ECAR), with a particular focus on the fact that although the Appeals Committee (ApC) issued several unanimous recommendations in favour of staff, the Office has decided to implement only a limited number of them.
Due to the limited time available during the meeting, we subsequently followed up in writing. We are pleased to share below the administration’s written replies.
You will find our questions (labelled “LSCTH”) alongside the corresponding answers from the administration (labelled “Social dialogue”).
1. Exam fees and administration costs
LSCTH: The ApC concluded that exam fees and administration costs are direct expenses and should be reimbursed under Article 71 ServRegs. The Office has accepted this recommendation, but only as of the academic year 2025/26. This creates an inequitable situation for colleagues who incurred these costs between 2021 and 2025. We request that the recommendation be applied retroactively to all affected staff.
Social dialogue: At the time the reform was introduced, these were considered indirect education costs. However, the Office decided to refine its practice in light of experience gained and recent recommendations of the Appeals Committee and as from the 2025/2026 school year, these fees are reimbursed as direct education costs. It is within the discretion of the Office to manage its internal administrative practices and to define the timing of their implementation. The Office also wishes to clarify that Appeals Committee opinions are individual, case- specific, and do not have automatic consequences for other staff members.
2. Non-financial recommendations
LSCTH: Two non-financial recommendations of the ApC were not implemented:
• The Office should refrain from requiring staff to modify their requests in the Education Allowance Portal and instead proceed with reimbursing the undisputed amounts.
• Salary slips should clearly indicate the relevant articles corresponding to each type of reimbursement.
Could you please clarify why these recommendations were not adopted?
Social dialogue: The Office provides staff with a comprehensive HR self-service portal where staff can submit and amend their requests, including those related to education matters. To treat requests with the efficiency and timeliness that we aim to provide to all colleagues, it is important that requests be submitted according to the clear instructions that have been provided, which is the case in a vast majority of cases. The Office does not find it adequate to change the approach towards a more complex set-up, which may result in a worst situation for most colleagues. Similarly, the HR self-service portal provides detailed access to the employee’s situation which underpins the condensed contents of the payslip, complementing it for the purpose of understanding its contents. As a general-purpose document used by colleagues for many different needs and in diverse contexts, the payslip must, in the Office’s view, remain a summary document.
3. Mandatory learning trips and campus fees
LSCTH: The Office has deviated from the ApC’s recommendations on this topic. Could you explain the rationale behind this decision?
Social dialogue: As for mandatory learning trips and campus fees, these were discussed in the same series of meetings. The Office highlights that the Appeals Committee has assessed school trips as indirect costs in individual appeals concerning a range of schools. The only exception to this was in appeals concerning school trip fees of the British School in The Hague, where the Appeals Committee recommended a partial reimbursement. The Office maintains a consistent approach across all schools treating school trip fees as indirect education costs and considers that there is no legal basis for partial reimbursement of a fee. Likewise, campus fees for accommodation are considered indirect education costs and there is no legal basis for partial reimbursement of such fees.
4. National and German Schools
LSCTH: During our last meeting, we discussed the situation regarding national schools (specifically the ouderbijdrage) and the German International School The Hague (DISDH). Do you have any updates on these matters?
Social dialogue: Concerning national and German schools, the ‘Vrijwillige Ouderbijdrage’ is a voluntary cost and therefore not reimbursable as a direct education cost. The Office contributes through the monthly lump sum, as explained in the revised intranet guidance. With respect to the German International School The Hague, the transitional measures under Article 20(1) CA/D 4/21 apply only to staff who benefitted from Article 120a ServRegs at 30 June 2021 and whose education costs exceeded the Annex IV ceilings at that time. This interpretation was made clear during the preparation and implementation of the reform and remains the Office’s position.
LSCTH regrets the Office’s position, which is at odds with the ApC recommendations and stands in stark contrast to basic common sense. In any case, please be assured that we will continue to closely monitor the consequences of the Education & Childcare Allowance Reform and actively advocate for necessary improvements.
As always, please feel free to share your feedback on this exchange, whether your questions have been answered, remain open, or if these replies have raised new ones.
Kind regards,
Your Local Staff Committee The Hague
What really stands out there is, despite getting more money by granting loads of invalid/illegal patents, the administration is trying to justify cuts and harms to staff, even to family members. And more on the issue of legality, as the above points out, "LSCTH regrets the Office’s position, which is at odds with the ApC recommendations and stands in stark contrast to basic common sense." (They basically ignore the juries, as usual; the "king" decides everything, even in patent tribunals)
The EPO has nothing to do with law or justice. Considering its literally Nazi roots, none of this should be shocking, either. It's just pure 'financialization' (creating 'money' out of thin air by creating monopolies in Europe, granting them to non-European companies). That's done directly and consciously to the detriment of Europe, sort of like selling one's own village to an enemy. █
_____
* Under Benoît Battistelli, VP1 was blasted routinely, including in the context of staff suicides:
