12.12.15

EPO Central Staff Committee Warns That EPO President Illegally Changes the Rules to Remove the Rights of the Accused, Crush Dissent/Unions

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Main court in Warsaw, photo by Michal Zacharzewski

Summary: The Rule of Law is no longer applicable in Eponia, where people can be dismissed or suspended based on mere allegations

THE EPO‘s attempts to silence Techrights have made it the de facto publication for almost everything deep inside Eponia (the stuff not announced to the outside world). We often get material from several sources simultaneously these days.

“I’m sure you’ll get several copies of this one, but just to make sure,” said one source, here it is.

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité central du Personnel

11.12.2015
sc15452cp – 0.2.1/4.5/0.3.2

Amendment of the Service Regulations on suspension

Suspension of staff members is increasingly en vogue at the EPO. After staff representatives serving on the internal Appeals Committee and a member of the Boards of Appeal, the President of the Office decided to suspend on 18 November 2015 three elected staff representatives, also SUEPO executives. Not to mention “normal” employees suspended in less conspicuous investigative and disciplinary procedures.

“Suspension of staff members is increasingly en vogue at the EPO.”The President put on the agenda of the GCC meeting scheduled on 09 December a proposal to delete a protecting clause from Article 95 ServRegs, just in time before the Administrative Council (AC) of 16/17 December 2015.

Pursuant to Article 95 ServRegs, the appointing authority may decide to suspend an employee if an alleged misconduct is so serious that it becomes incompatible with his/her continuing in service, for instance if continuation of service would be against the interests of the Office, would endanger the investigation process or even other employees. Suspension is not a disciplinary sanction: it is essentially an interim measure until the appointing authority decides on a disciplinary sanction following the completion of a statutory disciplinary procedure.

“The President put on the agenda of the GCC meeting scheduled on 09 December a proposal to delete a protecting clause from Article 95 ServRegs, just in time before the Administrative Council (AC) of 16/17 December 2015.”The appointing authority may also decide to withhold part of the remuneration, up to half of the employee’s basic salary. A salary reduction is warranted when the foreseeable disciplinary measure would have a financial effect, i.e. only in case of relegation in step, downgrading or dismissal¹. Presently, the Service Regulations include a single provision protecting employees against excessively slow investigation and disciplinary procedures: if no final decision is given within four months from the date of suspension, the employee shall again receive his/her full remuneration². Furthermore, in that case, the employee is entitled to reimbursement of the amount of remuneration withheld³.

Similar provisions are included in the Service Regulations of other International Organisations, either in the form of a fixed duration for a suspension (e.g. non-extendable six months in the EU regulations), or in a more flexible form, with an advance written statement setting out and justifying its duration (UN and WHO). However, after the abolition of Article 95(3) ServRegs the EPO would be the only international organisation that would have nothing in place. While any extension of
_____
¹ Article 93 ServRegs
² old Article 95(3) ServRegs, to be deleted soon
³ old Article 95(4) ServRegs, to be amended soon

---

any time limit over the presently four months would still be objectionable because it is not in the interest of staff, the abolition thereof is unacceptable because it is illegal: Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial within a reasonable time (emphasis added).

The amended Article will have immediate effect on all suspensions ongoing on the date of its entry into force. The Administrative Council, assisted by the Office, has “house-banned” and suspended the member of the Boards of Appeal in December 2014, and is now being confronted with a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) not proposing his removal from office, as would be required by Article 23(1) EPC. The AC has asked once more the EBoA to propose removal from office and it is now tempted to buy time. Prolonging the suspension on a reduced salary is the President’s selling argument for the AC to approve the amendment. However, the Council would be ill-advised to lose credit by approving such a drastic proposal.

“…the abolition thereof is unacceptable because it is illegal: Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial within a reasonable time (emphasis added).”A “collateral” but possibly not completely undesired effect is that suspension of any EPO employee on a reduced salary may go on for an unlimited period of time, without justification and against ILO-AT case law⁴, with no incentive for the President or the AC to investigate speedily the alleged misconduct and decide in a reasonable time⁵. This de facto negates the interim character of a suspension and turns a salary reduction into a financial sanction. Such disproportionate decisions may in principle be challenged with the Administrative Tribunal but the review is limited due to their discretionary nature, and a judgment will be long to come.

Factually, suspension will become an additional punishment. Thus the present proposal of the President is neither in line with the Service Regulations nor with ILO-AT case law. It is a violation of the EPC, for much the same reason. It is also a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Therefore, the AC should dismiss the proposal.

“Thus the present proposal of the President is neither in line with the Service Regulations nor with ILO-AT case law. It is a violation of the EPC, for much the same reason.”It should be noted that any damaging effect on any EPO employee this change of Article 95 ServRegs may in turn lead to court cases against Contracting States before the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, this amendment will bring into disrepute the Organisation, the Office, as well as the respective Contracting States if they were to be convicted.

Finally, it is remarkable that President Battistelli comes with such a proposal for tougher punishment tools in what looks like a “suspension policy” against staff, although the AC gave him in March 2015 the clear mandate to engage into “social dialogue” with staff.

The Central Staff Committee
_____
⁴ see for instance Judgment No.2698
⁵ see for instance Judgment No.2698

This document is quite self explanatory and is written in plain (not legal) language/terms, so there is little that we can or need to add to it. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

A Day After Massive EPO Protest Benoît Battistelli Tries Using Money to Appease Staff

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The biggest-ever (and ever-growing) EPO staff protests, over abuses rather than money, necessitate reactionary spin

Summary: With slight (usually less than inflation rate) pay rise Battistelli hopes to make it seem as though he is generous

The following EPO piece was published on the Intranet a few days ago and got leaked to us. Why? To use the source’s own words: “Story-telling? Paternalistic patronization? Delusion? Or all of the above?”

We are going to first present the text in full, then proceed to a short sarcastic rebuttal.

Communiqué No. 73

04.12.2015
2015: A positive year for EPO staff

2015 has been a positive year in which our output and revenues have risen. Our enduring commitment to quality, both in terms of the products and the services we offer, has paid dividends. We have, thanks to your efforts, also prospered from increasing efficiency and rising levels of productivity, resulting in a financially positive year for our Office. As you know, my policy has always been clear: the results generated by the performance of the Office must directly benefit the staff in both the short term and the long term. [Note: there is a rumour that Battistelli got a 13% pay rise]

Earlier this year we announced a significant global rewards envelope and the means for its distribution. The new system ensures that those who contributed to the generation of extra revenues for the Office are recognised. Under this performance-based system and through step advancements, promotions, bonuses, functional allowances and collective performance bonuses, around 75% of the staff will be rewarded in 2015. For this purpose we have allocated 18.4 million euros, which represents an increase of more than 20% in comparison to the actual amounts spent during last year.

Given the strong situation in which the office finds itself, further proposals will now be made to the Administrative Council to ensure that every staff member of the EPO is able to benefit from our successful year.

Thanks to the salary adjustment formula which the Council, on my proposal, approved in June 2014, all salary scales and allowances effective from 1 July 2014 will be increased retroactively by 0.5%. On top of this retroactive adjustment, for 2015 the increases in salaries from 1 July are:

- Austria: +0,7%

- Belgium: +2,0%

- Germany: +0,9%

- The Netherlands: +1,5%

Cash injections and good investment returns also mean that we have been able to stabilise the rates of contribution into the pension and social security schemes. Accordingly, there will be no increase to the rate of contributions from staff to either the Pension Scheme or the Salary Savings Plan. Overall, including contributions to the healthcare insurance scheme and the long term care insurance scheme, we have managed to achieve a situation where all deductions from staff salaries are stabilised at the level of the previous year.

Finally, a proposal will be tabled to finance the long term liabilities of the Office by making a substantial cash injection of €200 million into the Reserve Fund for Pensions. Such a transfer, without any direct contribution from the staff, will contribute to the financing of EPO pension schemes and safeguard your future pension rights. During the last four years, such cash transfers amount to almost half a billion euros.

I think it is fair and legitimate that you benefit directly from the best ever results that you have generated. I am thankful for your achievements, of which we can all be proud.

04.12.15 | Author Benoît Battistelli – President

Here it is in plain English: 2015 has been a positive year (if we ignore the overwhelmingly negative press we got) in which we made a lot of money from key partners like Microsoft. Our enduring commitment to expanding patent scope and lowering the bar, both in terms of the products (yes, products!) and the queue-jumping services we offer, has paid dividends. We have, thanks to my wonderful iron-fisted leadership, also prospered from reduced illness (because it's dangerous to stay home while ill) and rising levels of stress, resulting in increased salary (and bonuses) for me and my homies. As you know, my policy has always been clear: the results generated by the performance of the Office must directly benefit the compensation to managers in both the short term and the long term.

Earlier this year we announced a significant global rewards envelope and the means for its distribution. The new system ensures that Big Businesses, which contributed to the generation of extra revenues for the Office, are recognised. Under this performance-based system and through step advancements, promotions, bonuses, functional allowances and collective performance bonuses, 25% of the staff will not be rewarded in 2015. For this purpose we have allocated 18.4 million euros, which represents an increase of more than 20% in comparison to the actual amounts spent during last year.

Given the strained situation in which the office finds itself, further suppressions but also gifts will now be made to the Administrative Council to ensure that every delegate of the AC/EPO is able to benefit from our incentivising year.

Thanks to the salary adjustment formula which the Council, on my command, approved in June 2014, all salary scales and allowances effective from 1 July 2014 will be increased retroactively by far below the inflation rates. On top of this retroactive adjustment, for 2015 the increases in salaries from 1 July are:

- Austria: +0,7%

- Belgium: +2,0%

- Germany: +0,9%

- The Netherlands: +1,5%

So, in other words, almost everywhere the inflation rate will outpace salary increases.

Cash injections (wink wink) and good investment returns also mean that we have been able to stabilise the rates of contribution into the pension and social security schemes, if you ever manage to actually qualify for it. Accordingly, there will be no increase to the rate of contributions from staff to either the Pension Scheme or the Salary Savings Plan. Overall, including contributions to the healthcare insurance scheme (which cannot be used because we don’t allow people to be ill) and the long term care insurance scheme (if the EPO is still around), we have managed to achieve a situation where all deductions from staff salaries are stabilised at the level of the previous year. That still doesn’t take into account the colossal internal tax, which we don’t like to publicly talk about, especially not when speaking to the media.

Finally, a proposal will be tabled to finance the long term debt of the Office by making a substantial cash injection of €200 million of Europeans’ money into the glorification of the almighty EPO. Such a transfer, without any direct contribution from the staff, will contribute to the PR campaign and public image of the EPO. During the last four years, such cash transfers amount to almost half a billion euros. It’s fun that money flows like this, without much oversight, let alone limitations.

I think it is fair and legitimate that you get less than inflation rate pay rise, after I used bogus yardsticks to tell politicians I achieved best ever results. I am thankful for your passivity and I insist that you don’t attend the protest next Thursday, especially if you attended yesterday’s protest.

04.12.15 | Author Benoît Battistelli – Sun King. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO ‘Sweetener’ for Administrative Council National Delegates

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A lot of money is spent keeping the national delegates, who have the power to challenge the EPO, smiling

YESTERDAY we published (and later updated with readers’ input) contact details for delegates, in order to make complaints about the EPO even simpler. We still urge citizens of member states to contact their delegates and put some burden of guilt on them, in order for them to at least consider doing something about the EPO’s abuses.

We have discovered something rather interesting and especially ironic given the way that the EPO games sickness figures.

By now, we have been urged repeatedly to write about this, as several people independently drew our attention to something new.

“We still urge citizens of member states to contact their delegates and put some burden of guilt on them, in order for them to at least consider doing something about the EPO’s abuses.”“Don’t know if you were already aware of that,” one said, “but someone finally pointed to the passage in the minutes of the Administrative Council of EPO in which – suddenly and magically – the delegates last year were given FREE dental treatment!

“And I can assure you that when in Munich you say “send the bill to the European Patent Office”, the dentist will ALWAYS find something …”

“So, a complete reworking of the smile in a top German practice (3000-10.000 EUR, if not more) how would it be not considered a bribe in any other European country? Not in the magical word of EPONIA! Where the President can count on the unwavering and smiling support of countries untouched by the progress of modern dentistry: Macedonia! Albania! Croatia! Bulgaria! San Marino!”

“So, a complete reworking of the smile in a top German practice (3000-10.000 EUR, if not more) how would it be not considered a bribe in any other European country?”
      –Anonymous“Have a look at the comments at the IPKat,” said one person with a pointer to this comment and further comments. Points 45 and 46 of the minutes are especially revealing. We wish to invite readers to send us the full document (meeting minutes) in order for us to show the original material relating to this free ‘gift’, unconventionality if not unconditionally given to Battistelli’s overseers. It’s not some negligible gift; dental care can be expensive, especially for people at the age group in which one would expect delegates to be. This becomes especially valuable for delegates from poorer countries. I have not even had a tooth filling myself (and I barely ever go to a dentist), but for some of these older people the proportional value of this gift is very high as they can take advantage of it without any limits.

“The medical insurance thing was reported in the official minutes of the Administrative Council CA/79/14,” one person wrote. “How come the delegates were able to survive for the last 40 years without this little “sweetener”?”

Here is the text in question:

12.1 Any other business

45. The Vice-President DG 4 informed on newly introduced medical insurance for delegates. Urgent medical treatment and dental treatment would be covered for delegates, deputies or experts when attending meetings of the Coucil [sic] and its sub-bodies or any event upon invitation by the Office. The insurance would cover all costs not taken over by the delegates’ insurance.

46. The Council noted this information on new medial insurance for delegates.

Can someone please send us the original document?

Another commenter noted: “I see that, as regards “dental” treatment for AC delegates coming to Meetings in Munich, reimbursement is not limited to “urgent” treatment, and is intended anyway to cover treatments for which the normal travel insurance for medical costs declines to pay out. I can speak from personal experience here in Munich. The city has a lot of top quality dental practices, accustomed to accommodating the wishes of visitors who jet in from other countries, many from the Gulf States, Russia etc. I now have a magnificent set of teeth, of which I am very proud. The cost was horrendous, even with full medical insurance, but my magnificent new smile makes it all worthwhile.

“So what is not completely apt, with the choice of word “sweetener”?”

Well, perhaps this shall be known now as the “sweetener” scandal, which isn’t a big scandal but nonetheless something to keep track of. We would like to publish the original. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

New Private Eye Article Says EPO “Doesn’t Actually Deny That There’s a Fast-Track Project Allowing Big Firms to Queue-Jump”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The EPO’s favouritism-related issues are becoming mainstream news even in the UK’s most respected papers

YESTERDAY we got many photographs of the Private Eye article about the EPO. We even got a third photograph [PDF] and a fourth person supplied the text.

“I ran the photo through OCR software,” a regular reader told us. “After some contrast and trapezoid corrections the result was quite good, and needed only corrections for the part near the crease that couldn’t be corrected.”

“I should file a software patent for crease compensation software,” the reader added sarcastically.

Here is the text of the article:

PATENT-LY ABSURD

PATENT officers took to the streets of Europe again last week with protests in Munich and The Hague at the treatment of the elected staff union representatives who have been suspended by bosses.

Earlier this year a Dutch court ruled that the European Patent Office (EPO) was violating the fundamental rights of its own staff, but as a supra-national organisation (run by the European Patent Organisation, a separate-treaty organisation from the EU) the EPO claims immunity from national employment law.

Meanwhile, the EPO has exercised its bullying tactics on the UK-based blogger who uncovered the email detailing how the organisation planned to fast-track a backlog of patent applications by a small group of very large (and mainly non-European) companies, including Microsoft (see Eye 1404).

Dr Roy Schestowitz, a software engineer who writes the Techrights blog, said the EPO’s lawyers contacted him just before midnight on a Friday evening, threatening to issue legal proceedings unless he removed the post, apologised and agreed “to pay our clients damages (in a sum be agreed)”. They set a deadline of noon on the Monday for him to comply, leaving almost no time to find a lawyer but a whole weekend to worry.

Dr Schestowitz is now being represented bv David Allen Green of Preiskel & Co and has not apologised or paid out. He has taken down the specific post that caused the complaint, but he has posted lots more criticism of the EPO since, as have newspapers in several European countries.

While Dr Schestowitz’s blog was stridently critical of EPO. the patent office doesn’t actually deny that there’s a fast-track project allowing big firms to queue-jump. It insists this is the only way to avoid even worse delays for smaller players in the market, since Microsoft et al could take action to force the EPO to prioritise even more of the hundreds of applications they have queued up.

The EPO is clearly worried about blogs. Based on its own documents, it is afraid not only of Techrights (mentioned several times) but also of Florian Müller.

Florian Müller has just received recognition in “World’s Best IP Blogs”. According to this, “FOSS Patents is a blog that covers software Patent news and issues in general and focuses particularly on wireless, mobile devices like Smartphones and tablet computers.”

We are going to write a great deal about the EPO this weekend in order to cope with the growing backlog. We publish as fast as we receive new material and the frequency of publication depends on the frequency of input (which has only accelerated after the EPO attacked us). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

12.11.15

Series Teaser: EPO President Battistelli’s Relationship With Power

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A primer before a short series about the President’s ‘close contact’ — to use a pun — with rich and powerful people inside France and outside of France

THERE is a coming series which shall explore and deal with Battistelli’s political and/or high-class connections. It will soon be more evident and clear why these are relevant to the EPO situation. Battistelli is a public figure from a rich children’s school (we have these in the UK also), so a lot of this information is in the public domain.

The EPO’s relationship with big business is not exactly news. We have remarked on it several times before and so have others. Several years ago Benjamin Henrion uploaded this document [PDF] with EPO interviews and quoted from it as follows, regarding politics (emphasis is ours):

I would like to make some comments about the EPO and the way it functions. In a very schematic and direct manner, the EPO is not politically driven even if all the contracting states are represented in it. A technical link between the EPO and the European Commission would be desirable even if some member states are not part of the EU. It would be desirable that a ministerial session be organized at the very same level of the EPO Administrative Council in order to define trends and to discuss a certain number of developments. By bringing politics (in the positive sense) into the Administrative Council and the EPO, public opinion will see the importance given by the political class to these issues.

More interesting, however, are the parts about big business (or capitalised, Big Business). Consider these revealing statements from EPO interviews:

The relevance of big business has to be taken into account. The EPO has really become the exclusive preserve of large corporations, and this reality should be admitted. It is probably quite unrealistic to think that the EPO can be relevant to the small inventor, although ironically the EPO`s distinctive logo represents an inventor`s thumbprint ­ intended thereby to indicate individuality and originality.

When the EPO has meetings/seminars to consider the patent system, who can afford to attend? Only those whose flights are paid for. Corporations have to make profits and they will make increasing demands for a system which appeals to them. Good civil servants ­ the guardians of the public good ­ will have to learn to say “no” and this may be difficult for the EPO, since it needs fees to maintain a system to pay for itself. So your initiative today deserves credit.

Here is another one:

If I had a crystal ball and you were able to ask one question about the future, what would your question be?

Will governments in developed countries be able to detach from big industry`s influence and adopt a patent policy based on public interest rather than narrow industry interests?

There may be many unexpected events in the future, but the main issue for the patent system will depend on the answer to this question. Today governments in the developed world do not base their decisions on the interests of consumers and society at large. The main users of the system, the large companies, carry too much influence.

The following serves to remind us of close contact with big businesses like Microsoft:

Any patent reform needs to take all the circumstances into account and resist the lobbying of the more powerful. Otherwise, we run the risk of discrediting the system even further.

So what really is the EPO becoming if not just an instrument of the rich and the powerful?

One source recently told us that President Battistelli is close to a lady who isn’t particularly liked in Europe. We’ve so far managed to verify some of these claims in photographic form (at least).

This one is from INPI’s Web site (inpi.fr):

A lot of the EPO's current management came from INPI, basically following their master.

Stay tuned. There is a lot more. Christine Lagarde is relatively ‘small fish’ in a much bigger pool of money and power that Battistelli rubs shoulders with. Some people suspect that this is why Battistelli manages to get away with so many scandals (he is now being called sloeber, which means exactly that). █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Scandals in Private Eye Again

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: More mainstream coverage for the situation at the European Patent Office

THIS morning we were told that for the second time in recent months Techrights revelations about the EPO’s management have made it into Private Eye, a very widely respected publication in Britain (with a wide circulation too).

Two people have thus far posted photographs of the article in question, mentioning David Allen Green of Preiskel and yours truly in relation to the European Patent Office dispute. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Photos From EPO Protest in Munich

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Some photos from the latest EPO protest (with faces blurred)

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

12.10.15

A Little Taste of European Patent Office ‘Justice’

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A fair trial… fair enough for the king.

Summary: Justice at the European Patent Office (EPO) remains elusive because a so-called ‘investigation’ seems more like a retroactive (going years into the past) exercise in dirt-digging, character assassination (of the accused), and insistence on overwhelming secrecy (in this public institution enjoying a state-granted monopoly)

IT IS important for Techrights to show the low standards for dismissal of perceived threats at the EPO, even staff representatives. Team Battistelli wants to keep everything secret (except perhaps the character assassination against defendants), so wouldn’t that be just? The EPO wants a “trial by media” with gross omissions and neglect of context, defense, etc.

Last night we responded to the EPO management‘s preparatory notes of the so-called ‘investigation’ which is really just union busting disguised as something else. Here are some of “The Charges” on which we wish to comment based on our limited understanding of the situation:

11. Statement of Facts: The first charge arises from investigations C-62, 62a and 62b/2014 conducted by the IU.

Any investigation conducted by the goons of Team Battistelli cannot be treated as objective or independent. We already know, based on another investigation, that the I.U.'s work is highly deficient. It’s political and it’s controlled from above, by Team Battistelli.

2) failed to cooperate with the investigative procedure, inter alia refusing to appear at an interview to which she had been invited by the IU.

This was acceptable, based on these lawyers' take, which we put in text the other day. The I.U. is somewhat of a sham because it obviously disregards basic human rights. Rejecting it isn’t just an act of civil disobedience and investigation of the Investigative Unit is probably well overdue because it does not seem to comply with international standards [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. No wonder people at the EPO call it the "gestapo".

20. Pursuant to Article 14 (1) ServRegs, a permanent employee shall carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests of the European Patent Organisation in mind.

First of all, it’s not known if the accused was actually disseminated anything as alleged. Moreover, there are higher priorities sometimes.

The EPO insists that people who work for the EPO should conduct “solely with the interests of the European Patent Organisation in mind.” When one becomes aware of apparent misconduct, however, one should be allowed to blow the whistle, even inside an international body. People who work at the EPO don’t deserve to be reduced to slaves without speech or consciousness. To suggest otherwise would evoke all sorts of famous novel names/titles.

It is worth noting that whenever the accuser says stuff like “repeated dissemination of information” there’s basically a reference to an entirely another person, another case, and another dubious set of allegations. So it’s all an effort to bring forth guilt by association, where association is established by something quite loose like mere communication.

The accuser talks about “causing a corresponding risk of damage to the public image of the European Patent Organisation” as if the EPO has got some sort of God-given right to a good public image, irrespective of the management’s actions. There is later a claim about “safeguarding of the integrity and reputation of her employer.” This basically is a demand for blind loyalty.

Having failed to actually make much headway with a case against the defendant, a secret accuser is then brought into the text to attack the defendant’s character from a vacuum, with repetition of the word "sniper" (plentiful). This comes across like a cheap personal attack, or ad hominem tactics. It goes on for many pages (endless repetition) in an effort to paint the accused as a sort of harasser, which is so hypocritical a claim coming from the EPO’s management. These personal attacks are so cheap that they’re not even worth broadcasting and responding to. They serve to show just how desperate Team Battistelli is to destroy the character of the defendant. It’s a common technique in high-profile national security cases.

Skipping a lot of the ad hominem we get to:

77. On 18.09.2015 the Office received a reply sent by Ms Zegveld on behalf of the defendant denying any liability for breach of confidentiality and claiming inter alia that it was the defendant’s right as staff representative to inform all staff about the investigation being conducted against her (Annex 19).

Seems reasonable enough. We wrote about this before.

Then again the EPO reverts back to the notion that it can bust unions in secret:

87. By the further e-mail sent by the defendant on 17.11.2015 to all the other members of the Munich including those who had not been involved in any capacity whatsoever with the said investigation, and to she has demonstrated again the intentional disregard of the confidentiality requirements which form a necessary part of her employment with the EPO.

Well, union-busting isn’t exactly an ordinary situation and informing others that it is happening may be essential and justifiable. It’s evident that Team Battistelli wants a monopoly on power and it wants to acquire and secure this power by mass surveillance and censorship.

Team Battistelli seems to have received a sobering reminder of this whole situation’s true nature:

95. In her defence, the defendant has brought forward, through her legal advisor, the following arguments:
a) That marking a communication as “confidential” does not necessarily mean that it is so.
b) That the defendant was entitled as a staff representative to disclose to staff that she is being investigated by the Office.
c) That in any case the Office has provided no evidence that the defendant disclosed the e-mail concerning the investigation.

Then the EPO returns to some character assassination attempts, trying to even blame depressions and suicides on SUEPO itself.

The following point is hypocritical beyond belief, as Team Battistelli claims to be — wait for it! — “safeguarding the welfare of employees”. In context:

110. The defendant’s acts strike at the core of her employer’s reputation and functioning, notably the preservation of an office culture safeguarding the welfare of employees, as well as at the heart of the relationship of trust and confidence between the defendant and her employer.

Put simply, Team Battistelli no longer feels like she is loyal to Team Battistelli. Should anyone at all be loyal to it given its abusive practices? This whole witch-hunt should only serve to reinforce the perception of Team Battistelli having vendettas and megalomania.

The accuser says that the defendant wanted to “maximise the harm to the procedure” (meaning the attack on unions, referred to as “procedure”). The use of the word “harm” makes a suppressive action sound like some kind of vulnerable human.

The following shows the hidden motive all along — it’s to sack the defendant. But Battistelli’s folks try to frame themselves as gracious and apologetic with the beginning of the following point:

114. The Office earnestly sought to remediate the situation but has now exhausted all means and must accept that the employment relationship with the defendant is no longer sustainable.

Wow, “earnestly”? Yeah, right…

Since Battistelli’s people don’t actually have a solid case here (just some allegations and character assassination) they welcome more opportunities for more allegations and character assassination, maybe in order to deter the defendant:

116. The Office reserves all its rights under inter alia Article 101 (2) ServRegs to call witnesses to the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee and/or submit further evidence as well as to bring forward any other procedural or substantive requests including any further relevant incidents that may occur in the meantime and were not known to the Office by the time of signature of the present report.

Get this:

117. The present report is also submitted without prejudice to any claims against the defendant under inter alia Art. 25 and 28 ServRegs.

It’s “submitted without prejudice”. Funny that one…

To summarise, the main cause for this case (character assassination aside) is communication with a person, a judge who the EPO alleges is some kind of armed Nazi (seems like another ongoing character assassination). They’re building a castle of sand on top of another castle of sand.

Team Battistelli is very much hurt by the fact that there was no cooperation with its precious I.U., which is only a sham or a prelude to show/mock trial.

Is this really something which merits dismissing a staff representative? Readers can decide for themselves. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend