Summary: The attack on supposedly independent judges at the EPO escalates further; the judge whom the EPO was ordered to reinstate (by ILO) is being constantly pushed around, not just legally bullied
THE EPC was supposed to ensure that judges at the EPO's appeal boards would be independent. But they're not. Even the USPTO's appeal board (PTAB) is more independent, and it's hierarchically part of the same unit as the Office. We have not yet heard of PTAB judges physically or metaphorically being sent to Haar and threatened by a USPTO Director with disciplinary action/s. Never happened!
Update to the story of the "banned judge" at the EPO. Apparently he has been transferred to The Hague and given the job of Senior Expert in Classification. This is the equivalent of sending a Detective Inspector in the Metropolitan Police to direct traffic in Skegness.
On the other hand, Classification is a job which requires many years of experience of patent searching in a narrow technical field. As a former substantive examiner, and later Board of Appeal member, the "banned judge" will not have any of the requisite experience, and cannot hope to gain it in a short time. So, not only is he being uprooted from friends and colleagues in Munich and being put on sentry duty in The Hague, it seems he is also being groomed for a series of negative appraisals and a downwards career - possible even dismissal for incompetence.
In the recent decision G 1/16, the Enlarged Board of Appeal has provided clarification as to the test to be applied when examining the allowability, according to Article 123(2) EPC, of a claim that has been amended to include an undisclosed disclaimer.