Summary: The compositions of kangaroo courts at the EPO continue to be absurd, in spite of a ruling from the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which insisted that change must be made following a lot of mistrials
EARLIER THIS year we heard about escalations in Battistelli's attack on staff, emboldened by a Dutch court's decision to maintain Battistelli's immunity. In December the International Labour Organisation ruled that for a couple of years Battistelli's EPO had not offered justice to workers] (a hundred if not several hundreds people are affected by this gross injustice).
Central Staff Committee Members Munich
Munich 13 February 2017
Dear Mr. President,
We refer to your letter of 26 January 2017, in which you asked all staff committee members to volunteer for a function in the Appeals Committee. We further refer to the email of 10 February inviting all CSC and LSC members to attend a drawing of lots today.
Already when you called for volunteers in December 2014, the CSC sent you a letter explaining why it could not nominate. There were also no volunteer from among the CSC. The same reasons remain valid today. Accordingly, you will have noticed that we did not volunteer this time, either.
At this stage, we would like to notify you that we will not be available for being included in the pool for the drawing of lots. We specifically request that you do not include us in the pool of eligible staff members within the meaning of Article 36(2)(a) ServRegs.
In addition, we wish to draw your attention to the following facts:
1. We stood for election in the Central Staff Committee in 2014. We had no intention to be members of the Appeals Committee, nor was there any such obligation then in the Service Regulations. We have a legitimate expectation to be left to carry out our duties as staff representatives, without being saddled with additional burdens we have never considered taking on.
2. In a meeting with PD43, PD53 and Director 5.3.2. on 8 December 2016, we apparently came to a common understanding about the staff members which would be eligible for sitting in the Appeals Committee, e.g. excluding so-called “repetitive” appellants or members of the Boards of Appeal. The outcome of these discussions as well as our repeated requests to broaden the pool of eligible staff members available for appointment by the CSC were ignored later, most notably in the GCC meeting on 12 December 2016 when you submitted the proposal to amend Article 36 ServRegs.
3. As members of the Central Staff Committee in the biggest place of employment, we are not only dealing with all the central issues which fall under the competence of the CSC, but we are also directly or indirectly advising individual staff members about their rights, and in some cases act as counsels in internal appeals. This role was and is an integral part of our duties as staff representatives. There would be a direct and fatal conflict of interest if we were also to sit in the Appeals Committee. (Please refer to the statement of VP4 and VP5 of 30.09.2014 and to your Communiqué 61.)
4. If you were to coerce us into participating in the Appeals Committee, we would not be able to act impartially as staff representatives. If you were to oblige us to resign from the staff representation to avoid that quandary, you would be violating the principle of freedom of association.
5. Within the framework of the Working Group on resources for the Staff Committees, a specific budget for external expertise was requested - including lawyers to advise staff. We did so promptly upon taking up our tasks as elected staff representatives, as we realised that we could not cope effectively with all the workload involved in advising staff. PD43 has refused to make such budget and technical means available to us until today. Therefore, the Office itself bears a fundamental responsibility in creating the situation in which we cannot sit in the Appeals Committee.
6. At this point in time, there are even more severe problems of capacity for the remaining members of the CSC in Munich than in the previous years. Contrary to your assurances in CA/4/14 and in Communiqué 48 that the time budget for the staff representation would not be reduced with the introduction of “Social Democracy”, the figures show a massive decline. Moreover, the Office has imposed more and more constraints and hurdles in 2016, making our job exceedingly difficult – particularly for those exonerated from examiner duties only to 50%. It is simply physically impossible to take on (additional) demanding projects like the Appeals Committee. SUEPO members or officials amongst us have been particularly targeted.
Putting us in an impossible bind is not in the best interest of staff, the Office and of its reputation. It is also inadvisable to proceed in any way that could cause the Tribunal to condemn the EPO as it did in judgments 3694 and 3751. We trust that, upon careful reflection, you will not go down this road. We firmly believe that there are other ways to solve the issue, all within the current legal framework. We draw your attention to the letter sent by the CSC on 7 February 2017 (sc17016) which entails proposals which would immediately resolve the deadlock of the Appeals Committee.
From our side, we can only reassure staff, the President, and the Administrative Council that we will not act contrary to well-established legal principles and our ethical principles. We will not bring ourselves into any conflict of interest situation that will harm staff members, produce further undue workloads, and harm the sense of justice in our Office.
Sincerely,
The undersigned CSC members in Munich.
claude.rouiller@hispeed.ch. This is the kind of thing that Dutch authorities must become aware of, otherwise the Netherlands will become renowned not for international justice (e.g. ICC) but for the very opposite. It has already become quite a farce which we wrote nearly a dozen articles about. Among them: