Not criminals are punished but those who report the crimes or merely mention the crimes

The notion of justice at today's EPO is about as farcical as the above (if not a lot worse for numerous reasons)

Summary: By implicitly declaring a war on those who speak truth to power or those who are associated with perceived truth-tellers, Battistelli reinforces the perception that he is protecting the bad people at all cost (even his very own career)

WHAT apparently began with an attack on a truth-telling judge has developed into an Office-wide (if not Organisation-wide) crisis. Putting Željko Topić in a position of power was a terrible mistake all along and right now Battistelli just wages a war on truth itself. By doing so Battistelli made himself -- not Željko Topić -- enemy number one at the Office. "Apparently," one person told us, "SUEPO has a post-Battistelli exit party fund [...] this is extremely "end game" now..."

SUEPO representatives have come under incredible attacks for well over a year now. They're being attacked for basically informing staff (not just members) and explaining to them the situation. As an example of the baselessness of the attacks (with alleged fabrications by Team Battistelli), consider the attacks on SUEPO's Prunier at The Hague. This SUEPO representative, who is banned from the EPO's premises (i.e. guilty until/unless proven innocent), should be cause for alarm in all EPO sites. SUEPO published its text about Prunier at SUEPO's own Web site this morning (in RSS form only) and SUEPO has just provided an English translation of the article from NRC [PDF] (also in other languages) because it shows to what lengths Team Battistelli goes to prevent lawsuits against the Office (i.e. itself). The Techrights translation of the article helped show a barracks mentality in today's EPO, one that defames perceived enemies and tries to destroy their lives with bogus 'trials'. "Regarding my question (not opinion) about the closure of the disciplinary case," one person wrote today about the judge: "Isn't it so that a decision has been taken, that is, NOT to propose dismissal? That is a decision, on whatever grounds, substantive or not. There are plenty cases outside the EPO where a decision was taken on procedural grounds and it is not possible to reopen the case once a final decision has been taken, regardless if that was done on procedural or on substantive grounds. And yes, by taking this decision the member remains in limbo because there is nothing foreseen to reinstate him. What an incredible mess."

Another person wrote about the case in relation to the external appeals process:

The EPO president is used to face the weak Administrative Tribunal of the ILO. The ILOAT never organises Oral proceedings. There are no witnesses, no facts finding. The procedure is all but transparent. The file is not public then the Tribunal can easily modify the facts and hide the evidence brought by the staff members. Also, the Tribunal trust the EPO - No need to bring evidence for the EPO.

If the Office explains that the investigation found that Mr X did something wrong. The Tribunal will repeat that the investigation proved that Mr X did that thing wrong. For the Tribunal, the EPO is a fair organisation that never lie. That's why the Tribunal never put in doubt the explanations given by the EPO.

The EPO wins 95 % of the cases in front of the ILOAT.

When the EPO is in front of a real justice, then usually it looses the cases. For example, in front of a Dutch Tribunal or now in front of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

"Very very sad," one person told us about this, "but that's exactly the way ILOAT operates. This causes an extremity of misery amongst the parties concerned" (not just judges but also representatives and those whom they represent).

Right now there is a campaign of terror at the EPO. It's being waged by a deluded President whose termination seems to be only a matter of time. He did this to himself. ⬆