Central Staff Committee Confronted António Campinos for Giving His Cocaine-Addicted Friend Over 100,000 Euros to Do Nothing, Just Pretend to be Ill, While Cutting the Salaries of Everybody Else
"On the agenda: Amicale framework & Financial assistance for courses"
Yesterday the EPO's Central Staff Committee circulated a 4-page document about a 'meeting' (videoconference) regarding several of the things António Campinos, the ringleader who covers up cocaine use, does to the staff. The grounds for strikes were brought up as well:
In any other business, the CSC members in the GCC asked to be consulted as soon as possible on the new salary adjustment procedure and raised concerns over the risk of a further erosion of EPO salaries.
This was back in "16 December 2025". Back then the ringleader and the 'Alicante Mafia' could still ameliorate things to prevent strikes. But they're really so arrogant that they insist they do do anything they want. Here's the report dated yesterday:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du PersonnelMunich, 05-02-2026
sc26012cpReport on the GCC meeting of
16 December 2025Dear Colleagues,
The General Consultative Committee (GCC) met by videoconference on 16 December 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:
• New governance framework for Amicale - for consultation GCC/DOC 26/2025
• Circ. 434: Financial assistance for courses taken outside the EPO. Update of the minimum threshold and maximum annual amount - for consultation GCC/DOC 27/2025
In any other business, the CSC members in the GCC asked to be consulted as soon as possible on the new salary adjustment procedure and raised concerns over the risk of a further erosion of EPO salaries.
Read more in the GCC minutes.
The detailed opinions by the CSC members of the GCC are annexed to this paper.
Sincerely yours,
The Central Staff Committee
Opinion on GCC/DOC 26/2025 :
New governance framework for AmicaleWe acknowledge and appreciate that the Administration has taken a number of our remarks and suggestions into account, in particular with regard to Article 2(10), Article 4(2) and Article 5(4). We also note positively the revision of several provisions previously formulated using “shall”, which have now been appropriately rephrased as “should”, thereby aligning more closely with their intended non-binding character. We appreciate the constructive exchange with PD 4.2 and the team.
However, in the interest of inclusiveness, coherence and alignment with the Office’s stated values, we maintain our position that pensioners should be explicitly included in Article 4(6)(a). This could be achieved either by replacing “shall” with “should” or by explicitly including pensioners in the requirement that “at least 50% of the club should be Office employees in active employment”. Pensioners remain an integral part of the EPO community and should be recognised as such. This adjustment would ensure their continued full participation in AMICALE activities and safeguard the existence of clubs in which pensioners may constitute a majority, without undermining the overall objectives of the Agreement. While we understand the Administration’s stated priority to support active staff and their families, pensioners should not be equated with external third parties.
We also expressed our concerns about the time budget foreseen for the AMICALE Committees in Article 5(5). Two full-time staff members per year for the work of all committees across all sites is by far not sufficient. This is particularly challenging for examiners, whose workload and performance expectations have steadily increased. Their engagement in AMICALE activities has so far not been adequately recognised in their professional evaluations. Without a realistic and fair time allocation, there is a risk that colleagues may face disadvantages in their career progression or may be discouraged from volunteering. This situation could be aggravated by increasingly complex workflows, growing regulatory requirements and the increasing centralisation of committee processes.
In this context, we encourage the administration to consider establishing a more realistic and equitable framework that duly recognises the contributions of staff from all job groups who volunteers for AMICALE. To date, this recognition has been insufficient, and we respectfully ask the administration to reconsider Article 5(5) of the Agreement in a manner that it marks a tangible improvement in this respect. In addition, we call for workflows that are simple, transparent and efficient, allowing Committees to devote their time and energy to AMICALE activities rather than administrative overhead.
The Administration has stated its intention to offer simplified processes, to guide Committee members accordingly, and to inform and support managers of staff involved in AMICALE activities. We take note of these commitments and expect them to be reflected in a genuinely simplified and harmonised framework. Ultimately, it will be the practical implementation over the coming years that will demonstrate whether these stated intentions translate into meaningful and positive outcomes for the AMICALE Committees.
Finally, we reiterate our request for the Implementing Guidelines referred to in Article 1(4) of the Agreement. In order to take a fully informed and confident position on the proposed Agreement, it would have been preferable for these Guidelines to be made available together with DOC_26_2025. We note the Administration’s explanation that the Guidelines are to be developed jointly with the AMICALE branches and therefore could not be presented alongside the Agreement. As these Guidelines will define workflows and
establish a harmonised approach across sites—where processes have so far differed significantly—the intention to finalise a first draft before Christmas and present it to AMICALE in January is a welcome and constructive signal.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion on GCC/DOC 27/2025:
Circ. 434: Financial assistance for courses taken outside the EPO.
Update on the minimum threshold and maximum annual amount.The CSC members of the GCC at least formally get consulted again on the entire Circular No. 434. As the fundamental position remains unchanged, reference is made to the opinion already submitted during the first consultation on the circular, i.e. on document GCC/DOC 09/2025 (Circular on financial assistance for courses taken outside of the EPO on an employee’s own initiative).
In the current consultation on the circular, monetary amounts in the regulation for the financial assistance have been adjusted. The minimum threshold in Article 4(2) of Circular No. 434 has been raised from EUR 220 to EUR 225. The maximum annual amount has been raised from EUR 2.201 to EUR 2.249. These adjustments are in line with the mechanism in Article 4(3) of Circular No. 434 in so far as they correspond (before rounding) to the arithmetic average rate (2,18%) of salary adjustment for Austria, Germany and The Netherlands as adjusted by the Administrative Council under Article 64(6) ServRegs. The Administrative Council decided on 10 December 2025 in CA/D 10/25 on this salary adjustment.
The CSC members must formally note that this decision was not yet available by the limit date prescribed by Article 6 of the Rules of procedure of the General Consultative Committee of the European Patent Office. Notwithstanding this formal deficiency and as a sign of goodwill, we nevertheless refer to the opinion on GCC/DOC 18/2025, which explains in detail the legal and technical flaws in the salary adjustment.
The applied arithmetic average is fundamentally compromised by these legal and technical flaws. These flaws thus extend to the proposed adjustments of the minimum threshold and the maximum annual amount in Circular No. 434. In conclusion, the proposal must, insofar as the salary adjustment is not considered lawful, likewise be regarded as unlawful.
The CSC members of the GCC finally recommend that any changes to legal provisions, such as a circular, are explicitly set out in a (potentially brief) accompanying text and in tracked changes when consulted in the GCC. This may serve to circumvent potential ambiguities regarding the subject of the consultation.
The CSC members of the GCC
That's something that happened months ago, but the report is new. █