"Changes to the Staff Changes List: Less transparency at the Office"

Vampires dislike sunshine

Summary: The EPO's overt corruption is still being concealed; under Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos data protection or privacy at the EPO was routinely violated but now they champion the term "data protection" to censor evidence of the abuse

THE EPO is still a den of lies and abuse. We respond to many of them in Daily Links. We still see European software patents getting thrown out in European courts. Of course the EPO is just trying to replace those courts, even if that's both illegal and unconstitutional. This profound abuse will cost the EU. It will damage the EU's reputation like it did the EPO's. But this isn't the subject of today's post.

Circulating in the EPO this month is the following document. It's not from the union but from staff representatives. It contains many references and it also contains some names (apparently not pseudonyms), so we've chosen to obfuscate them in this public (HTML/GemText/plain text) version, which is preceded by an introductory message:

The Office will discontinue publishing the following information on the monthly Staff Changes List. - entry grade of newcomers, - reasons for termination of service - i.e. retirement, end of contract, resignation - citizenship

In this paper, we explain why we are against this. The Office should become more transparent, not less.?

Here's the full (3-page) text:

Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Le Comité Central du Personnel

Munich, 28.04.2023 sc23045cp

All the things the Office does not want you to know

The Office will discontinue publishing important information on the monthly Staff Changes List. We explain why we are against this. The Office should become more transparent – not less.

What is it all about?

The “Staff changes” lists are published monthly on the Intranet. The lists include dates of appointments and confirmation thereof, promotions, transfers, unpaid/family/parental leave, and termination of service. It appears that the Data Protection Officer (DPO) believes that some information is not strictly required for publication and should not be published to protect the interest of the data subjects.

What will change? The Office proposes in GCC/DOC 10/2023 to discontinue publishing the following information:

a) entry grade of newcomers, b) reasons for termination of service – i.e. retirement, end of contract, resignation, and c) citizenship.

---

What is the opinion of Staff Representation?

In our view, the Office should become more transparent and accountable – not less. We are against these changes for two reasons.

First, the staff change list is based on Article 31 ServRegs. It is titled “Communication to staff” and guarantees transparency and information by providing that:

“All specific decisions regarding appointment and confirmation thereof at the end of the probationary period, promotion, transfer, determination of administrative status and termination of service of an employee shall be communicated to the staff.” (Article 31 ServRegs)

"Right to be informed infringed"We believe that data a) to c) are an essential part of the specific decisions listed in the above article. For example, the entry grade is a part of the decision regarding appointment. Not publishing data under a) to c) would breach this article and, consequently, staff at the EPO would be adversely affected as their right to be informed would not be fulfilled.

"Transparency empowers staff"Second, it is essential that staff at the EPO knows what is happening in their vicinity and their department and are in a position to be able to compare the dynamics of different departments. For example, whether the ”end of service” of a colleague was due to a resignation or retirement (hence, a choice of the colleague), or whether the end of service was due to the non-renewal of a contract (hence, decision of the Office) is information staff and their representatives should be aware of. The information in the staff change list empowers all of us and enables us to make informed judgements and decisions about our work and life at the EPO.

Why is transparency important?

Transparency is crucial for international organisations because it empowers members of the organisation to become more aware of and gain a broader and deeper understanding of what is happening. Transparency also helps to build trust, which is critical for efficient collaboration. It establishes an organisation's reliability and trustworthiness and improves internal and external relationships. It is also a barrier against favouritism.

"Staff change list: no problem for over 14 years"The staff change list as we know it today has existed at least since 2009. In over 14 years, no data protection officers ever identified any problem or breach of data protection rules or guidelines.

---

Mr Campinos considered changing the list for the first time in May 2019. At that time, the changes were presented “in order to enhance the clarity and readability” of the list and it did not occur to anyone to justify the changes with data protection. Employee empowerment is one of the visions, and transparency is one of the key initiatives of the Strategic Plan 2023. Article 31 ServRegs enhances the services of the EPO and has been part of the Service Regulations since they were adopted 45 years ago in 1977. The reason was to give transparency to a newly born international organisation.

Conclusions

"Data protection “abused” to render EPO less transparent?"What should be avoided at all costs is to give the impression that the EPO Data Protection Rules are used as a pretext to render the internal working at the EPO less transparent. On the contrary, it is important in our view that the EPO becomes more transparent and accountable. This is essential for the trustworthiness and reputation of the EPO towards its staff and the public. For example, the publication of step assignments and functional allowances would contribute to that goal.

For all these reasons we invited the Office to withdraw this proposal.

The Central Staff Committee

[redacted]

It's quite revealing; the EPO is run by unqualified thugs who break the law, including privacy laws, and now they leverage "privacy" to silence their critics and exposers. The problem is that to me, as an EU proponent, this seems like an embarrassment and a risk to the EU. Not only are we witnessing inaction but active facilitation (e.g. with UPC). The EPO's corruption, which is deeply connected to EUIPO corruption, puts Europe at risk, not just its patent system. ⬆