07.03.16
What Team Battistelli Claims to be Independence of the Boards of Appeal Actually a Likely Dismissal Plan for ‘Unwanted’ Judge (and Maybe His Protectors), Potentially Permanent Unemployment Plan
Whatever Battistelli wants from the Administrative Council (even collective punishment) he still gets
Summary: The Boards of Appeal (BoA) at the EPO have just been dealt another blow by Battistelli and new texts shed light on further crackdowns, not independence
Team Battistelli (i.e. Battistelli and his flunkies) habitually lies to staff and to journalists. Truth does not seem to matter anymore. On Friday we dissected the pack of lies released under the umbrella of "news" by EPO management after it had crushed the Boards of Appeal even further, paving the way for — as one person correctly noted — even more punishment (potentially collective punishment, which is hugely controversial and merely serves to discredit the whole Organisation).
With help/cooperation from his blindly loyal payees in the Administrative Council, Battistelli may have just engineered dismissal of the judge who allegedly spoke about Battistelli’s right-hand man (criminal charges in Croatia). To quote:
Why this reform is urgent?
21. (…) the President of the BOA will be responsible for proposing disciplinary action to the Administrative Council with regard to the members, including the Chairmen, of the BOA and the members of the EBA.
5. (…) the President of the BOA shall be appointed by the Administrative Council on a joint proposal made by the BOAC and the President of the Office (sic).
After this reform, the suspended member of BOA could be easily dismissed on proposal of the President of the BOA (for sure a BB [Battistelli] good friend).
The members of the Enlarged Board who dared to organize the public oral proceedings will be in trouble too.
This is exactly what we had in mind all along. The above puts it nicely citing the relevant paragraphs. Another comment says:
If the AC really were concerned about the independence of the BoAs, then why did they approve amendments that arguably make the Boards less independent (at least in some respects)?
It is not like they could not judge the effect of the proposals upon independence: AMBA’s comments on that point were unambiguous.
By the way, does anyone have a copy of CA/29/16 as amended that they are willing to make available? I am willing to wager that the most problematic issues with that proposal were not adequately dealt with by the amendments.
AMBA does not matter to Battistelli as it’s probably seen as an obstacle to his agenda. Regarding CA/29/16, says another comment: “I think those were only the proposal documents. As far as I understood the text wasn’t agreed as so much time was spent on DG3? The DG3 document was amended to drop references to non-DG3 staff with regard to these documents but wasn’t that just a nicety and CA29/16 would continue to be applicable to all staff if approved?”
Someone did eventually upload or link to CA/29/16 (annotated). We have made local copies of the following PDFs for long-term preservation purposes (differences shown at the top for those who are not eager to open PDFs on the World Wide Web):
Here you go:
CA/29/16 Rev. 1: Post-service integrity: prevention of conflicts of interest
CA/29/16 Add. 1 Rev. 1: Post-service integrity: prevention of conflicts of interest: comparison between existing and new text
“The amendments made by the Admin Council in CA/43/16 Rev.1 might not do everything you want,” one person wrote, “but they do address some of your concerns. They are more than “purely cosmetic”. Please read the actual document itself, not just the summary on the EPLAW blog. For example, the BOAC now has to consult users about amendments to the Rules of Procedure, not just the EPO President. The actual wording is to be proposed by the new President of the Boards of Appeal, advised by the Presidium.”
Yes, but who will be choosing or consenting to (or contrariwise, vetoing) a new President of the Boards of Appeal? See the comment above. “What is truly missing here is a comparison with national provisions/case law applicable in similar national cases,” another person wrote. “What is even more missing is an independent court capable to test proportionality and application of these CA/29/16 provisions. First of all, it goes about compensation for lost time and opportunities.”
“Battistelli just wants the perception of justice and a perception of independence, albeit it’s not clear at all how the latest changes would help achieve this.”The matter of fact is, as usual, national laws are largely ignored. They’re seen as obstacles. Battistelli just wants the perception of justice and a perception of independence, albeit it’s not clear at all how the latest changes would help achieve this.
Citing Robin Jacob at ‘IP and Other Things’ the above quotes the following “for the AC [Administrative Council] of the EPO,” s/he said. It goes like this: “And the wider our experience the more we can develop what I think is a key attribute – the ability to put yourself in the place of the other man or woman, whether they be litigant or witness or anyone else. This attribute – empathy-is precious; beyond just the courts it is one of the greatest protections against cruelty and one of the greatest forces for peace.”
It sure sounds like he was talking about Battistelli even though he certainly was not. What happens at the EPO right now is hugely damaging to the perception of lawfulness. Not only has the Office made some truly dubious hirings but it also viciously attacks those who are brave enough to bring up the subject. It’s the kind of behaviour one might expect from the Pentagon, so why not at the increasingly-militaristic EPO?
“What happens at the EPO right now is hugely damaging to the perception of lawfulness.”“EPO Stooge” wrote: “All of the alleged “decisions” of the administrative council (i.e. 43/16 and 29/16) are proposals only, it it clearly says in every case “for decision” on the cover page. In contrast, all decisions of the AC clearly state “Decision of the Administrative Council for/to/…”. I haven’t seen any official statement of the AC yet and what BB posts on the EPO’s intranet (quoted several times above) has a credibility rating of close to 0%, at least if its face value is concerned. Before jumping to conclusions, lets wait for both explicit decisions and an official statement by the AC (in a hidden niche on the EPO.org homepage). It should come out next week. There’s a lot of tactical moves going on, on both sides of the EPO/AC fence.” Well, another comment from “EPO Stooge” said: “Please disregard my latest comment re official AC statement on 148th meeting, just saw it (http://www.epo.org/about-us/organisation/communiques.html#a25). I’m very surprised that they actually did allow proceedings for a removal to a new building in Munich, after initial strong words against it, including those of influential members like Grossenbacher. Depressing. Deeply intransparent.”
Well, there he goes. Battistelli received everything he wanted and due to obsession over this one single matter there was no time at all to discuss his gross abuses (and failure to address demands) while he got the usual protection from his ‘clients’ and friend, Mr. Grossenbacher (the story of Brimelow led some to the suspicion that it was Grossenbacher along with Battistelli who had elbowed her out [1, 2, 3]). █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA