THE ORIGINAL idea behind a civilised, reputable EPO is that it should honour rules/guidelines, but not even its President can honour his very own rules (Code of Conduct). To make matters worse, this so-called 'President' treats so-called 'judges' (a phrase from Donald Trump this week, for those who don't follow US politics) like clowns that can be flagrantly ignored at will. Even the highest court in the Netherlands is being treated like a joke or a circus by Battistelli and his manic protectors. Trump's disdain for judges is well-documented (like calling a US-born judge Mexican, then dismissing his judgment because he wasn't pleased with his supposed background, or more recently firing the Attorney General for saying exactly the same thing that dozens of other judges/solicitors have ruled since). Battistelli is allegedly hoping to be the head of UPC, which is a theoretical framework that would issue judgment enforceable in Europe and beyond! Only a lunatic would give the EPO -- and more so Battistelli -- any additional legal powers. His Napoleonic mindset belongs in the Dark Ages.
Yes, I would imagine that a case against the Netherlands at the ECtHR would be the most obvious next step... hence the reference to Strasbourg in my earlier comment.
The case law of the ECtHR (including Matthews v. The United Kingdom) would seem to be in SUEPO's favour. Also, the Supreme Court's judgement, combined with ILO-AT's judgement 1542, would appear to make it possible for SUEPO to ask the ECtHR for a ruling.
It should now be obvious to all that the EPC lacks the checks and balances that might enable a (single) Council of Europe Member State to ensure that it meets its obligations under the ECHR (with regard to the EPO employees in its territory). In theory, this could lead to liability (at least for EPO host states) for entering into an international agreement that contravenes the ECHR.
Indeed, I believe that it is very important that the ECtHR provides a ruling on this point... otherwise it will establish a precedent whereby Council of Europe Member States can escape their obligations under the ECHR merely by setting up international organisations (and providing them with immunities) for the purpose of conducting activities that would otherwise be illegal within the territories of those Member States.
Given that they will have read the lower court's decision, the Supreme Court clearly was aware of this point. Also, it is hard to believe that SUEPO would not have raised the very same point in their arguments before the Supreme Court. However, the thing that I find hardest to believe is that the Supreme Court would gloss over this point by using one of the most unconvincing excuses I have ever seen.
Never let the legal niceties get in the way of a politically loaded judgment ...
Yes, I would imagine that a case against the Netherlands at the ECtHR would be the most obvious next step... hence the reference to Strasbourg in my earlier comment.
Dream on. As reported on Techrights Battestelli's IU goons are on the prowl in the The Hague. Do you seriously think that anyone will risk taking such a court action under these circumstances?
Are you suggesting that Monsieur le President is taking action that is deliberately designed to stop SUEPO (or intimidate SUEPO against) initiating new legal actions? If so, then that is a very serious allegation indeed.
Taking advantage of overly-broad privileges and immunities granted to you is one thing. Going beyond that, by taking action specifically designed to deny individuals (or a union) access to justice in respect of rights enshrined in the ECHR would be something quite different... almost verging on the criminal.
Are you suggesting that Monsieur le President is taking action that is deliberately designed to stop SUEPO (or intimidate SUEPO against) initiating new legal actions? If so, then that is a very serious allegation indeed.
Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting.
Taking advantage of overly-broad privileges and immunities granted to you is one thing. Going beyond that, by taking action specifically designed to deny individuals (or a union) access to justice in respect of rights enshrined in the ECHR would be something quite different... almost verging on the criminal.
And what are you going to do about it? Call the cops ?
Indeed there is hyperbole and there is Hyperbole! I'm not sure what the IU rumours are but I've not heard anything untoward recently. Of course, investigations are by mgt decree secret and to reveal is to offend but there is one generally known case currently which does not appear to be controversial from what has leaked out. To extrapolate to campaigns of terrorising is a large step. The real problems should not be diluted by a misguided (or perhaps worried) reaction.
wrt ECHR: guys let them breathe. They have to held elections in MUC and TH and there is 6 months from the date of the High Court jugement to lodge the complaint there.
Trust them : good things come at the right time