"The Mafia" at the EPO Now Attacks Staff That Points Out Misconduct at the EPO
At the EPO, the "Mafia" has resorted to new escalations, seeing that staff plans to go on strike (or some other industrial action) and Cocainegate isn't going away. They're basically trying to chill critics, portraying the criticism as the real problem rather than the behaviour being criticised.
António Campinos is just Benoît Battistelli the Second. Here is what the Central Staff Committee said to staff, alongside the slop image on the right.
President criticises communications on salary erosion
Reproaches made on alleged personal attacks and inappropriate language
Dear Colleagues,
In a letter of 18 November and a letter of 24 November, the President refers to the meeting with LSC Munich on 6 November, the General Assembly in Munich on 13 November, the CSC comments on GCC/DOC 18/2025 and 23/2025 as having in his view “language directed at XXXX and her team”.
The President expresses these as “personal attacks aimed at the professionalism of our colleagues” not in line with the standards of responsibility when exercising the right to voice differing views.
The Central Staff Committee (CSC) denies any personal attack directed at any colleague in the above-mentioned events and communications.
We recall that in Judgment 4551, consideration 11, the Tribunal ruled that “[f]reedom of association, communication, information, and speech vested in staff members and staff representatives encompasses the right to criticise the employer” (emphasis added). In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the EPO had submitted CSC communications and a SUEPO cartoon. The Tribunal explicitly considered that these did not exceed the limits to freedom of opinion and speech.
It is the right and also the duty of the CSC to scrutinise and criticise from whom the EPO President takes advice, which officials the President entrusts for reforms and in which units difficulties are met, especially when the results of a reform are not the ones promised.
Read more in our reply to the President.
Included in the message to staff were the corresponding E-mails, starting with threats:
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyOffice address
Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1
80469 Munich
Germanyepo.org
The President
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 - 1000
president@epo.orgDate: 18.11.2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Mr Derek Kelly
CSC ChairVia email to: centralstcom@epo.org
Your email of 6 and 14 November 2025
Dear Chair,
On 6 and 14 November 2025, the CSC provided its comments on GCC/DOCs 18/2025 and 23/2025. While sharing written comments prior to the GCC can support efficient discussions, these submissions included language directed at xxxxxxxxx and her team. Similar language was also used during the meeting with LSC Munich on 6 November 2025 and the General Assembly in Munich on 13 November 2025.
The Office supports open expression and values the role of the staff representation. It has also consistently repeated the importance of trust, fairness and mutual respect, especially in social dialogue. At the same time, it is underlined that the right to voice differing views must be exercised responsibly. The CSC’s above-mentioned comments appear not to align with this standard. This is especially true as the GCC serves as a forum for discussing policies, for which the President and/or the Administrative Council are responsible, rather than by any single staff member, PD, or team.
Personal attacks aimed at the professionalism of our colleagues are not in keeping with the spirit of constructive social dialogue. The Office expects that future communications will be conducted in a respectful manner, focused on substantive issues rather than individuals, in line with the standards required in all exchanges with the Office.
In this respect, the respectful discussions in the GCC of 17 November 2025 provide a positive example of how constructive dialogue can be conducted.
It is hoped that your final opinions on the above GCC documents will also follow this example.
Yours sincerely,
António Campinos
This was followed up, again, days later: (micromanagement of speech)
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyOffice address
Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1
80469 Munich
Germanyepo.org
The President
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 - 1000
president@epo.orgDate: 24.11.2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Mr Derek Kelly
Central Staff Committee ChairVia e-mail:centralstcom@epo.org
Your opinions and comments following GCC 17 November 2025
Dear Chair,
The Office has received the opinions and comments issued by the CSC following the GCC of 17 November 2025. With regard to your opinion on GCC/DOC 18/2025 and comments on GCC/DOC 23/2025, the Office appreciates that some constructive changes have been made compared to the versions shared on 6 and 14 November 2025 respectively. In particular, it is noted that you have replaced “xxxxxxxx” with “the administration” or “the Office” in several paragraphs (60, 71, 78, 106, 127, 146 of GCC/DOC 23/2025) as well as removed or softened statements of a personal nature (97, 106, 133 of GCC/DOC 23/2025, 92-93 of GCC/DOC 18/2025).
At the same time, we regret to note that a significant number of references to xxxxxxxx remain (paras. 20, 40, 66, 67, 72, 73, 74, 97, 133, 134 of GCC/DOC 23/2025 and 7, 9, 25 and 92 of GCC/DOC 18/2025). Notably, the following inappropriate phrases are retained:
• “It is high time that the EPO realizes that has not been in a position to produce a procedure that meets the standards of the Tribunal." (para. 92 of GCC/DOC 18/2025).
• “xxxxxxx did not design a salary adjustment procedure meeting these expectations and the promise made by the President was broken.“ (para. 97 of GCC/DOC 23/2025).
As set out in our letter of 18 November 2025, such language does not contribute to constructive and respectful exchanges. The Office therefore requests that these references targeting a specific colleague or unit be omitted or reformulated in a neutral manner, in line with the CSC’s role and responsibilities.
As they stand, these documents are consequently not ready for publication in the GCC Library. We refer in this regard also to Art. 10 of the GCC RoP, which provides that “The aforementioned documents, results and minutes, or parts thereof, are excluded from publication by decision of the Chair of the GCC if they prima facie prejudice the legitimate personal interests of employees of the Office or third parties.“(underlining added). Once the necessary adjustments have been made, the Office will proceed with their publication in the GCC Library.
We therefore invite the CSC to take the appropriate steps with regard to the present documents and to ensure that future opinions and comments focus on substantive issues. We are confident this will support a constructive and respectful dialogue.
Yours sincerely,
António Campinos
Like every typical dictator (in denial about it), he demands "Respect" from the very same people he's attacking, robbing etc. This "Respect" will later be utilised to impose a self-censorship regime.
This is how the Central Staff Committee responded days later.
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyCentral Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler PersonalausschusscentralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc25074cl
Date: 28/11/2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
To: Mr António Campinos (President of the Office)
By email:
To: president@epo.orgOPEN LETTER
Your letters of 18 and 24 November 2025
Dear Mr President,
In your letter of 18 November, you refer to the meeting with LSC Munich on 6 November, the General Assembly in Munich on 13 November, the CSC comments on GCC/DOC 18/2025 and 23/2025 as having in your view “language directed at XX.XX and her team”. You express these as “personal attacks aimed at the professionalism of our colleagues” not in line with the standards of responsibility when exercising the right to voice differing views. In your letter of 24 November, you regret a significant number of references to XX.XX remaining in our final comments and GCC opinions.
The Central Staff Committee (CSC) denies any personal attack directed at any colleague in the above-mentioned events and communications. In the letter of 24 November, you write that the CSC has “removed or softened statements of a personal nature (97, 106, 133 of GCC/DOC 23/2025, 92-93 of GCC/DOC 18/2025)”. Such amendments shall in no case be considered as acknowledgment by the CSC that they were of a personal nature or inappropriate. We note that we also hear from managers and staff in the administration that they sometimes feel targeted when we criticise broadly “the administration” or “the Office” and do not say whom we are referring to.
We recall that in Judgment 4551, consideration 11, the Tribunal ruled that “[f]reedom of association, communication, information, and speech vested in staff members and staff representatives encompasses the right to criticise the employer” (emphasis added). In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the EPO
had submitted CSC communications and a SUEPO cartoon. The Tribunal explicitly considered that these did not exceed the limits to freedom of opinion and speech.
It is the right and also the duty of the CSC to scrutinise and criticise from whom the EPO President takes advice, which officials the President entrusts for reforms and in which units difficulties are met, especially when the results of a reform are not the ones promised.
To conclude on this topic, the CSC will exceptionally blacken out the references you object to in the two sentences in the final documents and does so under duress.
Sincerely yours,
Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
So their speech is being policed and there are more than veiled threats. Their criticism is being spun as "attack on women".
Please contact the press; the EPO is trying to silence its staff. That's very clear for all to see. This is where the press can help. █