Credit/source: JUVE
THIS morning we wrote about the new arrival at the EPO. A much-anticipated departure was on Friday, accompanied by incredible propaganda and lies, as we mentioned in this late Friday post.
"It’s going to be interesting to see how Campinos tackles the issue of noncompliance with ILO-AT rulings."IPPro Patents has composed an article about the arrival, whereas WIPR (World Intellectual Property Review) is still boosting Battistelli propaganda, even 3 days after the departure. WIPR writes about Battistelli in July, just as IAM did yesterday. "Benoît Battistelli" all over it. But he's done, he's gone. The article is lots of copy-pasted EPO quotes rather than actual research; it's as though the EPO wrote this article and passed it to WIPR for publication (which they tend to do, more or less). We should not talk about Battistelli right now; except how to hold this brute accountable (his immunity has just been voided). This new blog post in German, highlighted earlier today by SUEPO, was titled "the President, in error and in violation of due process..."
Can he be held accountable right now? Better ask lawyers who are proficient at international law. We are rather disappointed to see these Friday PR stunts and photo ops of Battistelli amplified and boosted by WIPR on the very first day of his replacement's tenure. This isn't a great start or a positive sign and there appears to be no article about António Campinos. Almost none.
Earlier today someone passed the following recent letter to us; it had been circulated earlier on and it's linking to FICSA or SUEPO documents on the expected ILOAT reform, which was described as follows and mentioned WIPO as well (mind similarities to EPO):
21 June 2018
Dear colleagues,
In apparent close co-operation with the Tribunal’s client organisations and the Tribunal, ILO has worked out a set of proposals “for possible improvements to the functioning of the ILO Administrative Tribunal”. The staff representations were not involved and are only now being consulted.
Some of the proposed amendments confirm current practice. Of those that do change the situation, the majority is unfavourable to staff, e.g.
- It was suggested to allow applications for review, currently only open to complainants (staff), by “both parties”. It is not clear how this would improve the functioning of the Tribunal, while creating more work. There is the obvious fear that, unlike applications for review by staff which are almost without exception dismissed, this amendment may open a new route for the Organisations to overturn judgments that are unfavourable to them.
- It was suggested to allow the Organisation to request (!) summary dismissal of complaints, with the further procedure being delayed until the Tribunal has reacted to that request.
WHO and WIPO added some unfavourable proposals of their own, namely:
- awarding costs against the complainant, - in case of unfair dismissal, giving the Organisations the choice between reinstatement or paying damages, and - limitating of the maximum amount of damages to 2 years’ salary.
These proposals, if accepted, would allow any Organisation to get rid of undesirable staff at a maximum cost of 2 years’ salary.
FICSA (Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations) has provided a comprehensive answer which has been endorsed by many staff associations and staff unions, including SUEPO.
SUEPO has explicitly endorsed the FICSA position and has also submitted some additional observations and suggestions, read here.
SUEPO central