EPO Budget and Finance Committee (in Very Recent Meeting) Increases Bribes to People Who Vote on Campinos Reappointment ("Cooperation Activities")
Buying 'elections' to protect the cocaine-stained regime in Europe's second-largest institution
As expected, or predicted well in advance based on past experience, staff is being robbed to send some more bribes to the people meant to govern the EPO but are instead protecting a cabal or circle of corrupt people who lack background/experience in patents.
This is a new publication from the Central Staff Committee at the EPO with "interventions of the staff representation annexed":
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du PersonnelMunich, 05-11-2026
sc26079cpReport on BFC/138 of 28 and 29 October 2026
Management’s hope for business as usual in 2027Dear Colleagues,
At the Budget and Finance Committee meeting of 28 and 29 October, the Office tabled a draft budget for 2027 hoping for a return to business as usual: “In 2027, the Office expects productivity to increase to 121 products per FTE, an increase of 5.4% compared to 2026, a year in which productivity was suppressed as a consequence of industrial action.” 1 In addition, the document boasts “a decrease of expenses related to the accrual of pension rights […] driven by the introduction of the new salary adjustment procedure as of 2027 and the associated reduction in the expect long-term salary evolution from eurozone +0.2% to eurozone inflation +0.0%”.2 Conversely, the document features an increased budget for cooperation activities with the Member States.
In the meeting, the administration presented the solid financial position of the Office, including a liability coverage increasing at an impressively rapid pace, with the pension funding reaching 120.5% at the end of 2025, well above the target of 105%. The Office never presented beforehand the corresponding report from the actuaries3 , and their attempt to avoid discussions on the subject comes as no surprise since staff representation have repeatedly expressed their position that the increase in pension contributions was excessive and unjustified.
Some delegations took the floor to highlight that the pension schemes are fully funded and to request that the Council discuss the distribution of the surpluses to Member States at its next meeting on 9 and 10 December. During the same meeting, delegates will also vote in a confidential session on Mr Campinos’ re-election for a third term, which requires a three-quarters majority.
Staff representation reminded delegates that, since 2005, total staff costs had consistently accounted for between 65% and 72% of operational income, but are now projected to fall to around 50% by 2031. This reflects the Office’s decision to invest less in its most valuable asset: its staff. In 2018, the Office introduced the 5+5 year fixed-term contract employment system, relying on its immunity from national labour laws and justifying the measure on the grounds of an allegedly precarious financial situation. Today, however, the Organisation is generating substantial surpluses. In this context, staff representation called on delegates to abolish the 5+5 system as a measure to share the stability achieved with the workforce who secured it.
As in previous meetings, the administration maintained its dismissive stance, seeking to downplay the impact of industrial action rather than address its underlying causes. The administration also expressed the hope that this year’s salary adjustment would bring industrial action to an end.
_____
1 CA/50/26, p. 4, col. 1
2 CA/50/26, p. 27, col. 2 and p. 28, col1
3 “Lack of consultation on Actuarial Advisory Group report on the funded status (valuation as at 31 December 2025)”, CSC letter of 22 October 2026 (sc26077cl)
Staff representation reiterated that financial sustainability must go hand in hand with social stability, underpinned by meaningful social dialogue, which is currently sorely lacking. Ultimately, it will be EPO staff who decide what 2027 will look like.
The interventions of the staff representation annexed to this paper.
Sincerely yours,
The Central Staff Committee
Intervention BFC/138 Agenda point 6.2: Award of contract for the kitchen renovation of the ISAR building in Munich (CA/F 22/26)
by staff representation
Thank you Madam Chair,
The document reminds that “the Isar canteen remains one of the principal social hubs to maintain a sense of belonging and organisational cohesion and to support exchange between staff members under the New Way of Working. The existing kitchen infrastructure of the canteen in the ISAR building in Munich has remained largely unchanged since the original construction of the building and no longer reflects current operational requirements.”
The matter therefore directly relates to the working environment of staff and therefore also to their working conditions.
Surprisingly, the staff representation discovered the existence of this document when consulting the agenda of the BFC meeting. The matter was never submitted beforehand to the meeting with the site-managers nor in the LOHSEC (Local Occupational Health and Safety and Ergonomics Committee). There also used to be canteen committee to discuss between staff representation and the administration. But regrettably this forum was disbanded by this administration.
This situation is symptomatic of the lack of social dialogue under the current presidency. There is no desire from the administration to discuss, to meet or to now even show the documents.
Thank you for your attention.
Intervention BFC/138 Agenda point 9.1: Joint report of the Actuarial Advisory Group to the President of the European Patent Office ‒ Actuarial valuation as at 31 December 2025 for the calculation of the funded status (CA/84/26)
by staff representation
Thank you Madam Chair,
In this room one year ago, staff representation said the following:
“The successive layers of overconservative assumptions imposed on the Actuarial Advisory Group lead to the lowest discount rate in the history of the AAG and the highest contribution rate. The AAG report recommends as of January 2026 an increase of 1.9 percentage points in staff pension contributions. The funding ratio is already at 100.3% for pensions. Had the former discount rate been kept, the funding ratio would be already way above the target of 105%. What is the point in continuing with overfunding?”One year later, the answer is still the same. One should look at who benefits from it: Because of the details of our two pension schemes Old Pension Scheme and New Pension Scheme, a small minority of highly paid staff benefitted from an extra 600€ in monthly injections into their individual salary savings plans. This small minority is none other than ones in charge of the technical implementation.
Since then, 300 lower paid staff members joined the litigation supported by the trade union SUEPO against the increased pension contribution rate in 2026. The document proves them right: the pension schemes as at 31 December 2025 were overfunded at 120.5% way above the 105% target. The current generation of staff is contributing too much for their own pension compared to the previous or future generations of staff. The Office has broken the equilibrium between underfunding and overfunding which guarantees intergenerational fairness. And unlike some other International Organisations, there are no regulations that foresee reversing or returning those overpayments to the staff.
Surprisingly, the staff representation discovered the existence of this document when consulting the agenda of the BFC meeting. The document was not submitted beforehand to the General Consultative Committee (GCC), was never presented to the GCC-SSPR (sub-committee on Salary Savings Pension and Remuneration) and was never the subject of any technical meeting. Staff representation understands that this document is an embarrassment for those who poorly constructed an increase of pension contributions.
However, this situation is also symptomatic of the abysmal lack of social dialogue under the current presidency. There is no desire from the administration to discuss, to meet or to now even show the documents.
Thank you for your attention.
Budget and Finance Committee, 138th meeting 28-29.10.2026
Intervention Staff Representation (IC)Agenda point 10.3 – EPOTIF Performance and Risk Reports (2/2026) (CA/F 20/26)
Dear Madam Chair, dear delegates,
The Staff Representation would like to thank for the informative presentation of the EPOTIF Performance and Risk Report Q2/2026.
As shown in the report the overall performance of the EPOTIF in the second quarter of 2026 was +7.93%, outperforming the benchmark by 19 basis points and by 2 out of the 3 asset managers (fund segments). This is good news. However, this leaves, since the EPOTIF inception in 2018, a total return of 42.42% after the fees underperforming its benchmark by 85 basis points. The corresponding annualised return was 4.52%, compared with 4.60% for the benchmark. It is remarkable that, since its inception, the fees for the EPOTIF have totalled more than EUR 55 million.
It is expected that the insourcing of the EPOTIF starting in Q1 2027 and repeatedly advocated by the Staff Representation will bring better results by using in-house expertise and by saving on fees and then hopefully the benchmark outperforming will not be a rare exception.
I thank you for your attention and consideration.
10.4 Mittelübertragung vom Amt an die RFPSS
Intervention der Personalvertretung
Sehr geehrte Delegierte, die Personalvertretung stand seit seiner Einrichtung im Jahre 2009 dem Reservefonds für den Teilausgleich positiv gegenüber. Wenn auch damals strittig war, wie Sie in Erinnerung haben, daß die Verpflichtungen der Vertragsstaaten zum Teilausgleich nationaler Besteuerung vom Amt übernommen wurden.
Anfänglich wurden knapp EUR 51 Millionen in diesen Reservefonds übertragen. Mit den erzielten Renditen hat dieses Anlagevermögen bis zur Mitte dieses Jahres einen Nettoinventarwert in Höhe von EUR 156,7 Millionen erzielt. Dieses Zahlenbeispiel verdeutlich, daß die Mittel im Reservefonds sehr gut aufgehoben sind und die strategische Anlageverteilung das Vermögen nicht nur langfristig vermehrt, sondern auch wirksam vor Inflation absichert.
Die Personalvertretung begrüßt daher die jetzt vorgeschlagene Mittelübertagung in Höhe von EUR 565 Millionen an die RFPSS ausdrücklich.
Ich bedanke mich für Ihre geschätzte Aufmerksamkeit.
Dear Madam Chair, esteemed delegates to the Budget & Finance Committee, dear colleagues,
When looking at the budget and outlook for the coming years, one cannot conclude any differently than that we have become the financial equivalent of the Mont Blanc, as also mentioned by several delegations in one form or another - thank you for that.
As Staff Representation we are always looking at the enduring sustainability of the organisation - and it is now safe to say that the financial sustainability is there, beyond any doubt. This would not have been possible without the consistent endeavours of our colleagues, the staff of the EPO. Our thanks should first and foremost go to them.
Also: the prudent and consistent risk-controlled administration of our pension reserve funds is part and parcel of this financial sustainability. As in many meetings before, Staff Representation again extends its heartfelt thanks to our fund administrators.
However, financial sustainability alone is not enough.
I would like to highlight one particular trend, and it may come as a surprise that I will not comment at the optimistic 121 products/FTE, the ever-increasing productivity again largely attributed to tools, as if by magic.
Rather, I want to be looking through the numbers across the last 20 years, where I took the liberty to write down the actual operating income, Chapter 50, as reported yearly in each CA/50 document.
Between 2005 and 2025, this number went from just above 1B to near 2.5B - and this operating income is now projected to keep going upwards to nigh 3B by 2031.
This is 2.5-fold over 20 years, near 3-fold over some 25 years - or an average of about 4.5% per year. Impressive.
A bit less impressive is the evolution of total staff costs, Chapter 30, over this same period: from 730M in 2005 to 1.5B in 2025 actuals (doubling) - and now this is projected to start going down slowly in the coming years.
The actual evolution of staff costs until 2025 was an average of 4% per year, trailing the actual evolution of operating income with some .5% per year, on average.
With the projected decrease in staff costs, their overall evolution goes to an expected 3% average per year - or some 1.5% per year less than the income evolution over 25 years.
1.5% difference, on average, per year may not sound like much - but compounded over 25 years the effect cannot be ignored.
If you would have some money to invest with the choice of a 4.5% or 3% average annual return, would you prefer to see this money tripled after 25 years, or would you be equally happy to see it doubled?
The total staff costs used to hover in the 65-72% range of total operational income since 2005. However, from 2024 it started to clearly trend downwards and is now projected to plummet to about 50% of operational income by 2031.
However which way we look at it, staff is - and will remain - the EPO’s single most important asset, yet the administration chooses to allocate less and less of it’s operating income to this same single most important asset.
Of course, there are many factors contributing to the evolution of income and staff costs over time.
Part of the projected decrease in staff costs going forward comes from our demographic pyramid. It has the unfortunate shape it has, because of choices our administration made through the years.
Part comes from the protracted effects of reforms made by the administration through these same years: salary method, career, etc. The views of Staff Representation on these reforms are consistent and well-documented.
Combined however, the long-term trend is clear, and is projected to become ever more outspoken in the coming years: a smaller and smaller part of the operating income is reserved for staff, our single most important asset.
Why?
This question was already pointed at by my StaffRep colleagues, who have made several interventions in this gremium on this very question.
One thing in particular could - and should - be put into question.
In 2018 the EPO introduced the 5+5 contract employment - and it needed to rely on its immunity from national (labour) law for doing so.
It was introduced under the pretext of a precarious financial situation at the time. One can debate on this for long, and, here again, the strong views of Staff Representation on this contract employment are consistent and well-documented.
Given the rock-solid financial situation we have meanwhile achieved: if the office is indeed only looking to build long-term employment relations - something it keeps telling all our contract staff and incoming candidates - then it is time to put its money where its mouth is: abolish this 5+5 scheme, and move away from the precarious situation it puts our colleagues under contract in.
The office may well argue that there is no reason why it would not convert the contracts of people it has been training and investing in for almost 10 years - or that the statistics show that almost everyone saw their contracts renewed until now.
That is, however, absolutely not the message received on the floor. To our colleagues looking towards a contract renewal or a conversion into permanent employment, the message they get to hear is rather clear and consistent: production, not productivity, is all that matters.
Revisiting the contract employment, which is entirely ill-fitting the core task of this organisation, would be a step in the direction of restoring social sustainability - a conditio sine qua non next to financial sustainability, as has been mentioned in this room before.
Thank you
We wrote about this yesterday. By reducing net payments to staff the administration impairs staff's ability to join the Union or properly fund the Union, SUEPO. This benefits nobody but the corrupt officials. This is a form of union-busting. At the same time the money 'freed up' (taken away from workers) is used for bribery - funneled outwards in order to keep in power the perpetrators of the plunder. █