European Patent Office (EPO) Receiving Section (RS) and Elimination of Many Roles
Open letter to Mr Rowan (VP1) and Mr Aledo Lopez (COO)
"Dear Colleagues," the Central Staff Committee wrote to staff this week. "A presentation announcing a drastic reduction in Receiving Section staffing, followed by a call for Formalities Officers to apply for jobs outside DG1, triggered a real shock to many FO colleagues."
A year ago and earlier this year we mentioned what was going on or the bad news for Formalities Officers at the EPO. We had already written about that in:
- Formalities Officers Team Managers at the European Patent Office Consider Stepping Down
- EPO as Tower of Babel (No Formality Officers)
- Fate of Formalities Officers (FOs) at the EPO
- Formalities Officers (FOs) at the EPO Are in Trouble, Reveals Internal Report
- European Patent Office Illegally Gutting and Outsourcing Its Functions, Acting Like an Above-the-Law Commercial Business (It Won't Stop at Formalities Officers (FOs) and Classification Slop at the EPO)
- SUEPO (the EPO's Staff Union): “EPO Will Let Highly Experienced Examiners and Formalities Officers Leave Without Any Possibility of Knowledge Transfer to New Recruits”
"The concern is not only about the scale of the changes," staff got told today, "but also about the lack of clarity surrounding them. How were these staffing reductions calculated? What assumptions underpin the automation figures?"
"Many FOs feel that the complexity of their work, their expertise and the reality of exception handling are not being recognised. As a result, uncertainty is growing and many legitimate questions arose."
"In an open letter sent to Mr Rowan (VP1) and Mr Aledo Lopez (COO), the Central Staff Committee (CSC) addresses the concerns of Formalities Officers."
See below the open letter.
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyCentral Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler PersonalausschusscentralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc26042cl
Date: 11/06/2026
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
To: Mr Steve Rowan (Vice-President of DG1) and
Mr Angel Aledo Lopez (Chief Operating Officer)By email:
To: vp1@epo.org, coo@epo.orgOPEN LETTER
Redesign of Receiving Section
Dear Mr Rowan,
Dear Mr Aledo Lopez,Staff representation has recently received significant feedback from Formalities Officers (FOs) regarding the ongoing Receiving Section (RS) redesign project and the future of FO work within DG1.
First of all, colleagues are not opposed to automation and recognise the benefits of automating repetitive tasks. However, the current communication surrounding the project has created considerable uncertainty and concern.
The “Receiving Section Redesign” presentation announces “100% automated checks”, a “70% reduction of workload” and “up to 10-fold estimated reduction in FTEs”, while still foreseeing around 60,000 exception tasks per year. However, it is unclear how these figures were calculated and whether the complexity of exception handling and the expertise required have been fully taken into account.
The timing of the communication has also had a strong impact on staff, as the announcement of large-scale automation and potential workload reductions was followed almost immediately by the publication of numerous internal vacancies. Many colleagues felt encouraged to consider leaving FO functions before the future operational situation had been properly explained.
This impression has been reinforced by mixed messages from line managers. Colleagues are encouraged to consider opportunities elsewhere while simultaneously being told that Formalities Officers will
continue to be needed. Some intermediate review meetings reportedly focused more on vacancies and redeployment than on annual objectives, leaving colleagues with the impression that important decisions may already have been taken.
As a result, many colleagues ask whether mobility will remain genuinely voluntary, how redeployment decisions will be made, how secure the proposed new positions are in a context of continuing automation, and what impact a late-career change could have on grading and promotion prospects.
These concerns must be viewed in light of a survey among FO colleagues published by the CSC on 9 March 2026. Out of 119 respondents, 46% indicated that they wish to remain in their current role and a further 40% would prefer to remain while remaining open to opportunities. Only a small minority expressed a preference to move to a different role. The results suggest that colleagues overwhelmingly wish to remain connected to their profession and expertise.
The demographic reality of the FO population must also be taken into account. Many colleagues have family responsibilities, health concerns and significant financial commitments, making a late-career change neither simple nor realistic. Instead of preparing staffing reductions with such a rapid pace, the Office should consider allowing automation and upcoming retirements to reduce FO numbers progressively and naturally over time.
Concerning new tools and working methods, some colleagues report that replacement systems currently require more manual interaction and processing time than existing tools. This creates doubts about whether the projected workload reductions fully reflect operational reality.
Moreover, the prospect of moving into a new role through training delivered primarily online, while possibly joining a cross-site team whose members may rarely meet in person, is simply not attractive to many colleagues. More broadly, colleagues question the long-term sustainability of redeployment into other administrative functions. As the Office’s displayed intention to increasingly automate administrative work or replace it by AI, what assurances can be given that these new positions will not themselves disappear in a few years' time?
This raises a fundamental question: what future does the Office envisage for administrative staff, including FOs, particularly for colleagues who still have up to two decades of career ahead of them?
Some colleagues have raised the possibility of voluntary departure packages for staff who may wish to leave the Office rather than be redeployed into entirely new functions.
The 2018 reorganisation has left a long-lasting feeling of distrust due to excessive workload pressure, unhealthy internal competition, unrealistic operational assumptions and insufficient consultation with frontline staff. Without sufficient operational realism and transparency, many fear that similar mistakes could be repeated.
Finally, some colleagues question the purpose, long-term value and practical utility of EPAC while FO work is simultaneously presented as significantly diminishing.
Overall, colleagues ask for clear communication, realistic timelines, meaningful consultation with experienced FOs, and reassurance that the human impact of this transformation is being properly considered. This information should directly and transparently be dispatched by the decision-makers, rather than being left to interpretation through successive management layers, to avoid creating confusion, uncertainty and unrest.
Additionally, the CSC requests data regarding the demographic structure of the FO population, projected retirement scenarios and the workforce planning underlying the RS redesign
We therefore request management to organise a dedicated meeting with all FO colleagues to present its workforce planning and implementation timeline, and to provide the CSC with clear answers to the concerns outlined above.
Sincerely yours,
Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
The EPO is being diminished by people who illegally do cocaine (and get paid to do cocaine; they call it "sick leave") and sleep with the sisters of the cocaine addicts. How's that for the EPO's reputation? Does the EU leadership intend to tolerate this? █