06.05.16
EPO Tyranny Comes Under Fire From Politicians in Luxembourg
Small (but very rich) countries aren’t so easy to ‘buy’
Summary: The Luxembourgian Parliament is the latest among many to have concerns raised about Battistelli’s atrocious regime at the European Patent Office (EPO)
“More political support and action this time from Luxembourg” was reported to us 2 days ago. It looks pretty serious, but there is no coverage about this in English. We waited, but nothing came up.
“Political actions,” a source told us, “this time [come] from Luxembourg.”
“They have a vote,” added this source (alluding to the Administrative Council’s meeting which later this month can (and ought to) sack Battistelli, “so glad to see that those countries start to wake up in sense. Hope the fire will spread.”
Well, Battistelli is rumoured to be 'buying' the votes of small countries, which reveals a fundamental flaw (all countries, irrespective of their size, having an equal voice). “Unfortunately,” our source told us, the only article about this (so far) is “in French and Luxembourgish [Luxembourgian?] however the translation will follow!”
We are stil waiting for a complete translation of this article. “Questions in the Luxembourgish parliament on 03-06-2016,” we are told, include the following. It is an automated translation of the letter in this article:
Mr. Mars Di Bartolomeo
President of the Chamber of Deputies
luxembourgLuxembourg, 3 June 2016
Mister President,
Hereby, I would ask a parliamentary question to the Minister of Economy.
For some years now a social conflict within the European Patent Office (EPO) opposes a portion of the EPO staff and their union, on one side, in the direction of the EPO in Rijswijk (Netherlands ), the other (see my parliamentary questions No. 338 of 6 June 2014 and 1018 of 25 March 2015).
In the dispute is the President of the EPO, Benoît Battistelli, due to various measures that it has decided against the union. A judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal also ordered the cancellation of these measures on the grounds that they are contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, the Dutch government has prevented the implementation of the judgment by invoking the immunity would benefit EPO as an international organization in the States Parties. However in March, the President of the EPO had received a reprimand from the Board and a resolution approved by a majority of the 38 countries represented on the Board, President Battistelli was invited for measures to stop the trade unionists and to make a number of changes including recognizing the rights of employee representatives. In case of non-compliance with this resolution, the President of the EPO would risk the consequences much more severe by the Board.
However, according to the statements of the union, Mr. Batistelli does not consider to meet the above-mentioned resolution, but instead prepare new controversial reforms ia concerning health insurance and dismissal procedure. In this context, a British website issued as of 1 June 2016 a letter from the EPO Boards of Appeal have strongly criticized these reforms. These would aim a decrease of autonomy and independence of the legal body constituted by the EPO Boards of Appeal and do not respect internationally recognized principles of independence of the judicial powers.
I recollect that at the next meeting of the Board on 30 June in Munich, Luxembourg consider, in case of voting, to speak in favor of the current president.
In view of the above, I would like to ask the following questions to the Minister:
Sir Can confirm these recent developments in the social conflict folder within the EPO?
Sir can confirm that the Luxembourg, where voting will speak in favor of the president in office despite the fact that it has adopted measures, which according to the Hague Court of Appeal violate the rights fundamental guaranteed by the European Convention on Human rights, despite its refusal to comply with the resolution adopted by the board in March?
If so, Sir can it give the reasons for this intention to vote?
Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my highest consideration.Claudia Dall’Agnol
MP
If anyone has the capacity to accurately translate the above article or has access to more information about this, please comment below or contact us in private. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA