Head of the Belgian delegation, Jérôme Debrulle
In this part we will look at the delegation representing "plucky little Belgium" which, as we have already mentioned, was the only one of the Benelux states that refrained from endorsing Benoît Battistelli's "Strike Regulations" in June 2013.
"The "Select Committee" was established for the specific purpose of supervising the EPO's activities connected with the EU "unitary patent" project and it held its inaugural meeting in Munich on 20 March 2013."At the time in question, the Belgian delegation was headed by Jérôme Debrulle, who remains in that position to this day.
Debrulle was - and still is - the Chairman of the "Select Committee" (warning: epo.org
link) of the EPO's Administrative Council. This is a sub-committee of the Council established under the terms of Article 9(2) of EU Regulation No 1257/2012 and Article 145 of the European Patent Convention.
"The competences of this body include the setting of fees for "unitary patent" procedures."The "Select Committee" was established for the specific purpose of supervising the EPO's activities connected with the EU "unitary patent" project and it held its inaugural meeting in Munich on 20 March 2013. The Committee consists of the representatives of the participating EU member states. It also includes a representative of the EU Commission as an observer and it "may be assisted by advisers or experts". The competences of this body include the setting of fees for "unitary patent" procedures.
"...his abstention in June 2013 during the vote on Battistelli's "Strike Regulations" is something of an anomaly."The official record between 2010 and 2018 indicates that Debrulle was for the most part an uncritical supporter of Battistelli and his "reforms".
This is not very surprising given Debrulle's leading role in the planned implementation of the "unitary patent" project. Thus, his abstention in June 2013 during the vote on Battistelli's "Strike Regulations" is something of an anomaly.
Maybe the Belgians were jealous at the level of the attention which Battistelli had been lavishing on their Benelux neighbours, Netherlands and Luxembourg.
"This isn't very enlightening and it leaves the reader to wonder what exactly motivated the Belgian abstention on that occasion."Or maybe they genuinely had reservations about the legality of Battistelli's proposal.
The official statement of the Belgian position recorded in the minutes of the 136th meeting [PDF]
of the Administrative Council reads as follows (under point no. 121):
"The Belgian delegation said that it would have liked to have more time, given the sensitivity of the topic and the need to study the international situation. It acknowledged that rules were needed, but would need to abstain for the reasons given."
"In the next part we will look at the delegation representing Sweden, one of the two Scandinavian states which abstained."We'll probably never find out the answer to that question. Such is the lack of transparency when it comes to the governance of international organisations like the EPO.
In the next part we will look at the delegation representing Sweden, one of the two Scandinavian states which abstained. ⬆