01.19.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Case over alleged bribery resurfaces, lost by Topić
Summary: Topić has just lost — yet again! — a case over claims about ‘missing’ cars (related to a famous case in Croatia, one that landed several high officials in Zagreb’s prison, including the Prime Minister of Croatia)
THANKS to our invaluable sources in Croatia (and also outside Croatia), we now have an update regarding the Croatian defamation lawsuit, initiated by Topić in an effort to silence a legitimate critic who spoke to officials (very much like the suspended judge at the EPO, who is also alleged to have spoken about Topić’s alleged crimes to European officials). Some local (Croatian) reporters refer to Željko Topić as Ivo 'Sanader’s Protégé' (Sanader is in prison now).
Techrights has done much of the (usually exclusive) English language overage about this whole scandal before, including this one case in particular (there are reportedly more cases). In chronological order, here are some of the articles we wrote about this subject:
Here is some of the latest information about the famous (or should that be “infamous”) Croatian defamation lawsuit.
Following the Judgment of the Municipal Criminal Court delivered on the 28th of January (2015) which acquitted Vesna Stilin was of the charges raised against her by Topić, Topić filed an appeal.
According to available information, he requested the Appeal Court to remit the case to a different judge for a retrial.
The Appeal Court decided that the case should be sent back to the same judge at the court of first instance (Marijan Bertalanić) for the correction of some minor formal errors relating to the citation of the applicable provisions of Croatian criminal law.
In the mean time, Topić ditched his original lawyer Janjko Grlić of the prominent and politically well-connected Zagreb law firm Gajski, Grlić, Prka & Partners and switched to another well-known Croatian law firm Šerić and Šerić operated by Mr. Branko Šerić and his son Aljoša Šerić [1, 2].
When the defamation case against Vesna Stilin was reopened before judge Marijan Bertalanić, Topić requested the hearing of further witnesses and the judge allowed this.
At a Court hearing on the 23th of September (2015), Topić was represented by Aljoša Šerić but didn’t appear in person.
The witnesses which Topić had requested to be heard turned out to be a disaster for him.
- The first witness was a former chauffeur at the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office who excused himself from attending the hearing due to health problems.
- The second witness was an employee of the SIPO who said that she didn’t know anything about the subject of the hearing. She explained that she had only joined the SIPO after Stilin’s departure so that she had no direct knowledge of the conflict between Stilin and Topić.
- The third and final witness was Ms. Ljiljana Kuterovac, the current Director-General of the SIPO and Croatia’s representative on the EPO’s Administrative Council who is said to Topić’s protegée. Kuterovac said that she understood the subject of the hearing as she had been informed about it by Topić. When asked about the public lending right (PLR), she claimed that the SIPO had done everything necessary for its implementation in Croatia. However she admitted that the PLR was outside her area of expertise and that she didn’t know the precise details of the conflict between Stilin and Topić.
A final court hearing was scheduled for the 18th of December (2015). Topić and his lawyer didn’t appear for this hearing with the excuse that Topić had official duties that prevented him from attending.
The hearing was rescheduled for the 14th of January, 2016 (that’s just a few days ago).
Despite having been duly summoned, neither Topić nor his lawyer turned up for the January hearing. The judge was surprised and wondered what was going on as Topić had failed to notify the Court of his non-attendance. In the end, a decision to discontinue the proceedings under Article 401 par. 2 of the Croatian Criminal Procedure Code was issued.
Unless he decides to appeal the decision, it seems that Topić’s defamation proceedings against Vesna Stilin are now closed.
A copy of the minutes of the court hearing has been sent to us along with an English translation. Here is the original in Croatian [PDF] and a translation into English (with original structure preserved) [PDF]. For those who don’t like PDF files, here is the somewhat flattened text as HTML:
REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb
Ilica – Selska, Ilica 207
File ref. no.: 7. K-586/15
MINUTES
of 14 January 2016
Present for the Court:
Marijan Bertalanić
(Presiding Judge – Judge)
Ankica Zorić
(Registrar)
Criminal case:
Private prosecutor: Željko Topić
Defendant: Vesna Stilin
For the criminal offence pursuant to
Article 200/2 et alia of the Criminal Code
The presiding judge opened the hearing at 13:35 and announced the subject matter of the trial. The presence of the parties was established as follows:
1. For the private prosecutor [Željko Topić] – nobody, legal representative of the private prosecutor, Branko Seric – nobody
2. Injured party:
3. Defendant: Vesna Stilin, legal representative of the defendant, attorney-at-law Zoran Životić
4. Witnesses:
It is established that the summons issued to the private prosecutor [Željko Topić] was returned with an annotation from the courier “notified, did not collect delivery” and that the duly summoned legal representative of the private prosecutor, attorney-at-law Branko Seric was not in attendance.
The Judge delivers the following
DECISION
Pursuant to Art. 401 par. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the criminal proceedings against the defendant Vesna Stilin in the matter of the private prosecution by Željko Topić from 4th February 2011 are discontinued. Completed at 13:39.
Judge:
Registrar:
So Topić didn’t even show up in a SLAPP case that he himself had initiated. We already explained here before why we believe this wasn’t his first SLAPP action (in an effort to cover up abuses). Months ago I too became a victim of these ugly tactics.
While this case, on its own (there are reportedly more), does not prove criminality, it does serve to disprove claims that allegations of criminality are false. In other words, Željko Topić cannot effectively defend himself from Stilin’s accusations, which definitely lends credibility to these accusations. Based on the bizarre apology posted by a key source (similar to the EPO’s demands from me), we have reasonable grounds for suspicion that Topić went on an expedition to silence his exposers, to the point of threatening them with defamation lawsuits (so that they delete/remove incriminating evidence). That’s what out-of-control rich people tend to do when they cannot win an argument. Is Battistelli going to announce this decision to his staff in an internal communiqué or will he just deceive the staff by omission again?
As a side note, Topić’s new lawyer, Branko Šerić, is known in Croatia for his role as a Defence Counsel in the case of Vinko Martinović before the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. See the details here [PDF]. More recently, he has acted as defence counsel in a number of high-profile cases involving allegations of corruption during the Sanader era such as the “Maestro” [1, 2] and “HEP” cases [1, 2]. Aljoša Šerić is something of a minor celebrity in his home country. Apart from his membership of the legal profession, he pursues a parallel career in music and has played with the Croatian groups “Ramirez” (band) and “Pavel“. █
“In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.”
–Tacitus
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Irresponsible journalism, blindly trusts the words of Battistelli and his PR team
Summary: One of the leading ‘mainstream’ sources which covers EPO matters, Süddeutsche Zeitung, gets many of the facts wrong and by doing so helps the PR strategy of Team Battistelli
TOMORROW’S EPO protest is justified for many different reasons. Several people sent us a translation of the Süddeutsche Zeitung article (we hadn't foreseen the possibility of several people doing so at the same time). Süddeutsche Zeitung covers the EPO affairs quite often. Examples (so far) included:
The following is the first translation we’ve received of the latest article. It’s not a long article. “The article contains several errors,” told us the translator, “for example that the third staff member will not be promoted for three years (in fact, she was downgraded) and that the union leader will appeal at an international Patent Court (appeals concerning employment at the EPO can only be filed at the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization ILO, not at a Patent Court).
“The reporter who wrote this article, Katja Riedel, has also written the other articles about the EPO that were published in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. She tends to repeat the statements of the EPO management in a rather unreflected manner, without questioning them and without gathering further background information.”
Here is the translation:
Head of union dismissed
European Patent Office justifies dismissal with reputation-damaging campaign
Katja Riedel
On Friday, the ongoing conflict between parts of the workforce and the management of the European Patent Office headed by President Benoît Battistelli has reached a new level of escalation. Battistelli has decided to dismiss the head of the union Suepo and another union member. This was revealed in an internal letter, to which the Süddeutsche Zeitung has access to. A third staff member, who was also subjected to a disciplinary procedure conducted by the Office, will not be promoted for three years.
Battistelli and an officially appointed disciplinary committee, in which also staff representatives participated, considered as proven that the head of the union had participated in a defamatory campaign against the Office. She was also accused of having bullied other elected staff representatives. She has always denied this vehemently and, through her lawyers, claimed having been bullied herself for years. She is now going to ask the president to revise his decision. If this is not successful, she will file an appeal at an international Patent Court. This process usually takes years.
For almost two years a severe conflict has been going on at the European Patent Office, whose headquarters are located in Munich. Repeatedly, thousands of employees went to the streets to protest against the French [president] Battistelli. They complained that they were denied basic labor rights. The Office considers these protests to be part of a smear campaign against the Office’s management. Proceedings against a patent judge, a member of a Technical Board of Appeal, are still ongoing. According to an internal investigation report, he is said to be responsible for the smear campaign, supported by a small number of other people. He denies this vehemently. He said that he collected incriminating documents (that were found with him) out of personal interest. He is suspended. However, the institutional body which would have to agree on his dismissal has a different opinion about the available evidence than the Office’s management. For this reason, no decision has been taken so far about this matter.
Our translator was correct about the factual errors, which do reveal some misunderstanding or insufficient background (the author at Heise did not make such errors). The above also repeated some lies from the management — lies that we wrote about and rebutted earlier today [1, 2].
“To avoid such embarrassments (Süddeutsche Zeitung‘s Katja Riedel in this case) we strongly urge journalists not to take anything from the EPO’s mouth without a barrel of salt.”This is not good journalism. The EPO’s management and spokespeople cannot be trusted. To avoid such embarrassments (Süddeutsche Zeitung‘s Katja Riedel in this case) we strongly urge journalists not to take anything from the EPO’s mouth without a barrel of salt. They have an appalling track record when it comes to truthful statements, they're pushy, and they’re backed by professional liars (with a budget of nearly $1 million per year).
Another translation of the article in German was sent to us later.
“Here is a translation of the requested article published in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung“, wrote this translator. “IMHO it is interesting to note that this short article contains substantial errors. In particular the head of the union will not challenge to decision in front of a “Internal Patent Court”. This just doesn’t make sense! The third staff member referred to in the Article is supposedly Malika Weaver. I haven’t read the text of the sanctions against her but the assertion that the “third staff member will not be promoted in the next three years” seems at least ridiculous. Not being promoted in the next three years is, according to the new career system, commonplace for the average staff and therefore not a disciplinary measure. Is FTI alkso writing for the Süddeutsche Zeitung?”
Well, perhaps. FTI Consulting is already funneling EPO money into publications such as IAM 'magazine'. Anyway, here is the second translation:
January the 15th, 2016, 18:55
Dispute escalates
Dismissed union boss
European Patent Office justifies the expulsion with reputational campaign
By Katja Riedel
The ongoing conflict between parts of the workforce and the head of the European Patent Office, President Benoît Battistelli, has reached a new level of escalation on Friday. Battistelli has decided to dismiss the head of the union Suepo and another union member. This emerges from an internal letter, which we have at the Süddeutsche Zeitung. A third staff member, against whom the Office has also conducted a disciplinary procedure will, not get any promotion in the next three years.
Battistelli and an appointed disciplinary committee, in which also staff representatives supposedly have sat, considered it thus as proven, that the union boss had participated in a defamatory campaign against the Office. She was also accused that she had bullied other elected staff representatives. She has always denied this vehemently; she rose through her lawyers in turn allegations that she had been bullied for years. She now plans to ask the President to revise the decision. If this is not successful, she wants to sue with an internal Patent Court (TRANSLATOR’S NOTE: rather internal appeal committee). These procedures usually take years. For almost two years, a bitter conflict is raging around the European Patent Office, whose headquarters are located in Munich. Again and again thousands of employees went against Frenchman Battistelli on the road. They complained that they were denied basic labour rights. The Office alleges that the protests alone have the effect of a smear campaign against the Office management. There is a case still pending against a patent judge, member of the Technical Board of Appeal. According to an internal investigation report, he is said to have been masterminding said campaign with a few other people . He himself denies this vehemently. Incriminating documents that were found with him, should he have wanted to collected out of private interest. The man is suspended. The competent body which would have to agree with a dismissal, however, has a different view on the collected evidence. For this reason a decision is still pending.
Judging by this translation too, the facts aren’t quite right. Was there any fact-checking at all? A rushed job perhaps? Either way, these aren’t the facts. They’re Battistelli’s warped version of the ‘truth’ (reality distortion). Did someone pull Katja Riedel’s strings? We’ve heard all sorts of stories about how the EPO’s PR team manipulates journalists. █
“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.”
–Andre Gide
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
I did not have… to tolerate people who speak about my abuses.
Summary: A closer look at the nonsensical prose used to justify the firing of staff representatives rather than those whom they complained about
THE EPO is so scandalous that long ago it gave up pretending that it can be trusted. Why are some journalists still swallowing all the lies from the EPO?
After reportedly lying to its staff, we’re seriously left wondering why any journalists at all are willing to believe the EPO's PR team (backed by an American PR firm with an EPO budget of nearly $1 million per year), let aside Battistelli whose name goes at the bottom of many ludicrous statements that the EPO’s PR team keeps linking to (even several times per day and even one week later).
The letter which we showed here beforehand, demonstrating how the EPO's PR team characterises staff union busting as "social dialogue" or "union recognition" (spreading this lie to the media at the moment) was, according to our source, “sent before the three officials were “liquidated”.”
Now we have the following “communiqué” with Battistelli’s name at the bottom (maybe it’s ghostwritten by his department and just signed by him):
Home -> Organisation -> President -> The President -> Announcements -> 2016
Communiqué 2/2016
15.01.2016
Outcome of disciplinary procedures
Dear colleagues,
Last November, I informed you that instances of anti-social and unlawful misconduct concerning a few employees had been established (see Communiqué. 17.11.2015).
Disciplinary procedures were launched and I have now received the opinions of the three disciplinary committees composed of representatives nominated by the management and the staff representation. The disciplinary committees concerned have unanimously considered that the cases involved very serious breaches, justifying high sanctions, including dismissal.
Before taking my decisions, I have paid great attention to the fact that the employees involved are staff representatives who enjoy a higher level of protection and freedom of expression, having in mind their particular duties. It must be underlined that these cases relate to personal failures of the employees and have nothing to do with the social dialogue and staff representative activities. The status of staff representatives or union leaders can not avoid personal liability.
The charges relate to the active participation in the very damaging defamation campaign against the Organisation, the EPO management and individual staff members; to direct threats and coercion expressed against staff members and staff representatives; and to undue financial and moral pressure against EPO employees. Moreover, pressure has been brought against witnesses during the investigations and repetitive disclosures of confidential material have occurred, some linked to the security and safety of the Office and its staff.
In addition to the disrespect shown towards the Organisation and its legal framework, the respondents, prior and during the procedures, disregarded systematically the applicable rules and persisted in their behaviour despite several reminders. They showed a complete lack of awareness concerning the consequences of their unlawful actions and a surprising lack of empathy towards the victims, which is impossible to overlook. None of them acknowledged their wrongdoings, nor did they express their intention not to repeat them.
An employment relationship is based on trust, loyalty and respect of a corpus of rules. Any employee, including staff representatives and union leaders, has to act in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT. After considering all the facts and individual actions, high sanctions, including dismissal in two cases, are justified and proportionate.
Benoît Battistelli
President
Having just published the text of the EPO internal communiqué, now it’s time to respond to it by basically rewriting it as follows:
Home -> Organisation -> President -> The President -> Announcements -> 2016
Communiqué 2/2016
15.01.2016
Outcome of mock trials
Dear slaves,
Last November, I informed you that instances of whistle-blowing against my unlawful misconduct concerning a few employees had been established (see Communiqué. 17.11.2015).
Mock trials were duly launched and I have now received the opinions of the three disciplinary committees composed of representatives nominated by the management and the staff representation. I ignored these opinions, as they were designed to just give the illusion of peer judgment, then rewrote everything and exacerbated the judgment/punishment for I am a clue-ful autocrat. The disciplinary committees concerned have unanimously considered that the cases involved very serious acts of whistle-blowing, justifying high sanctions, which I made even more severe because they embarrassed me.
Before taking my personal decisions, for here we have an autocracy, not a meritocracy or a democracy, I have paid great attention to the fact that the employees involved are charismatic and popular so they enjoy a higher level of protection and freedom of expression, having in mind their particular threat to my undisclosed (but astronomical) annual salary. It must be underlined that these cases relate to personal failures of my regime which has nothing to do with social dialogue and actively denies staff representative activities. The status of staff representatives or union leaders cannot expose abuse at the managerial ranks. Me and my homies have immunity and impunity.
The charges relate to the active participation in the very damaging (to my reputation) whistle-blowing campaign. It dares to mention the Organisation, the EPO management and individual staff members; to misinterpreted jokes and disagreement expressed against staff members and staff representatives; and to undue financial and moral pressure against managers. Moreover, pressure has been brought against managers of the mock trial during the mock trial and repetitive disclosures of confidential material about a secretive mock trial have occurred, some linked to the perceived (by me) security and safety of the Office and my homies.
In addition to the disrespect shown towards the abusive management and its illegal framework, the respondents, prior and during the procedures, disregarded systematically my unjust rules and persisted in their behaviour despite several reminders. They showed a complete lack of awareness concerning the consequences of their free speech and a surprising lack of empathy towards the accusers, which is impossible to overlook. None of them acknowledged my accusations or accepted guilt, nor did they express their intention not to ignore me.
An employment relationship is based on trust, loyalty and respect of a corpus of rules. Any employee, including a President, has to act in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT. After considering all the facts and individual actions — actions that showed I had been repeatedly ignoring rules, not acting in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT — I decided I must shoot the messengers. High sanctions, including dismissal in two cases, are necessary to protect my monarchy. Long live Team Battistelli!
Benoît Battistelli
Sun King
“In the Hardon dismissal letter,” one person told us, “there is a clear allusion to the [actions against a judge] and an admission that spyware is installed on PCs.” That letter too was signed by Battistelli. This isn’t just an autocrat but a vicious and merciless one. Battistelli is not even being honest to his own staff! █
“Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heal that has crushed it.”
–Mark Twain
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The autocrat in chief, Benoît Battistelli, ‘pulls a Putin’ (or Francisco Franco) again
Summary: The statements made by Benoît Battistelli to his staff are said to be (once again!) a big lie, based on people familiar with these matters
TECHRIGHTS repeatedly asked for a translation of the report from Heise (article about the firing of staff representatives) because the author is insightful and has covered these matters for quite some time. He is not easy for the EPO and its aggressive PR team to bamboozle, unlike some other journalists (more on that later).
Here is a complete English translation of the article:
European Patent Office fires union leadership
The head of the European Patent Office has imposed harsh sanctions in disciplinary proceedings against three trade unionists: two of them are dismissed and the treasurer is downgraded.
The dispute between management and union representatives at the European Patent Office (EPO) has escalated. EPO President Benoît Battistelli has now taken drastic measures in disciplinary proceedings against three trade unionists. According to the information of Heise Online, Elizabeth Hardon, the chairman of the EPO’s trade union Suepo, and her predecessor Ion Brumme, have been dismissed. The treasurer of the trade union, Malika Weaver, is downgraded.
Sanctions “justified”
In a letter to which Heise Online has access to, Battistelli writes to the around 7000 staff members of the EPO that he took his decisions based on the recommendations of three disciplinary committees, in which both representatives of management and employees were involved. [According to Mr. Battistelli], these came to the conclusion that the accused committed serious infringements. The serious penalties were thus “justified and proportionate”.
According to information from the IPKat blog, Battistelli has however exacerbated the penalties which were recommended by the disciplinary committees (for all three unionists).
[In addition to what was proposed by the disciplinary committees], also Mrs Hardon’s pension rights were reduced, Mr Brumme should “only” be degraded and for Mrs Weavers, it was only recommended to put her career advancement on hold. They may appeal against the decision at the International Labour Court ILOAT, however that’s a process which takes years.
“Malicious slander campaign”
The office’s management accuses the trade unionists, among other things, to have threatened or bullied employees and to have informed third parties of the internal investigations. “I carefully took into account that the employees concerned are staff representatives and that they enjoy a higher degree of protection and freedom of expression, in accordance with their tasks” Battistelli said further. However, as he said, they were involved in a “very damaging smear campaign against the organization.” The Administrative Council of the EPO had recently shown concern and had recommended Battistelli to keep a low profile.
The Administrative Council recommended Battistelli to keep a low profile? Is that it? If this is the best they can do (similar to the way BBC covered up for Savile and FIFA did for Blatter), then contact delegates immediately and demand urgent action.
Remember that EPO management once banned linking to Heise (it threatened SUEPO for merely linking to an article from Heise). The EPO under Battistelli is absolutely nuts. Nuts! █
“Don`t let people drive you crazy when you know it`s in walking distance.”
–JAuthor Unknown
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Team Battistelli is socially engineering the staff unions in order to save face
Summary: The public relations offensive (attack on EPO staff) reaches absurd levels as the actions taken to crush unions are being framed as exactly the opposite of that, even in the media
MANY outsiders still struggle to keep abreast or on top of the EPO scandals because there are many of them happening concurrently and some are at best loosely connected.
Two essential background articles (to this latest article) involve the tiny Dutch union called FFPE-EPO, which is said to be quite close to Bergot (we covered this before). Based on numerous comments we have seen, FFPE-EPO is now being used/exploited — whether with FFPE-EPO’s consent or not — as a weapon against SUEPO. The management seems to be using FFPE-EPO as a “good boy” or a “model child”. The plurality of unions (at least on the surface) facilitates ‘divide and rule’ tactics. FFPE-EPO is rumoured to have just a few dozen members (they declined to reveal how many), whereas SUEPO, based on the following numbers, has about 100 times as many. To quote this comment from yesterday:
From the activity report SUEPO Munich 2014/2015:
Active members (Munich):
1.1.2014: 1643
1.1.2015: 1673
1.1.2016: 1859
The conflict shows who my colleagues trust….
- one of those EPO employees
Based on documents that we shared here before, the EPO’s management is now launching an attack on the very sign-up mechanism (like command and control) of SUEPO. It’s part of the decapitation strategy; SUEPO's rapid growth is clearly scaring Team Battistelli. Several days ago someone leaked to us the following letter:
13 January 2016
su16002cl –5.1/5.3
To: Ms Elodie Bergot
PD Human Resources
R. 718
Munich Isar
SUEPO Participation to WG on Union Recognition
Dear Ms Bergot,
We refer to your request dated 8 January 2016 that a SUEPO delegation attend a meeting about the “recognition of unions” on 20 January.
You have already been informed of the reasons why we had to decline former invitations. Please refer to our letters of 9 June 2015 to Mr Kongstad (su15228cl) and of 25 June 2015 to you (su15272cl), both of which have remained unanswered.
The same reasons apply even more now, since the administration – in particular at your behest – has further worsened the situation by suspending three SUEPO officials in Munich, tormenting another one in The Hague, even during his sick leave, and even trying to intimidate an employee of SUEPO The Hague. Despite the apparent wish of the Administrative Council in its December session to deescalate the conflict, the Office has since accelerated the process that will likely lead – if not stopped – to severe disciplinary sanctions against several SUEPO officials.
It is disingenuous to make a pretense of seeking dialogue with SUEPO while simultaneously targeting SUEPO officials in such a way. Accordingly, we will not attend the meeting, and place the responsibility for this entirely on you, acting under delegation of power from the President, whilst the Administrative Council is fully aware of the situation. Should the Office decide to lift the suspensions, remove all threats and stop all intimidations on SUEPO officials in all sites, we would of course be ready to immediately reconsider our position.
Yours sincerely,
Joachim Michels
Chair SUEPO Central
Elizabeth Hardon
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Munich
Alain Rosé
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO The Hague
Wolfgang Manntz
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Berlin
David Dickinson
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Vienna
.cc EPO President
.cc AC Chairman (with request to inform all AC delegations)
.cc Board 28 members
We hope this explains why those people organise more protests. Why tomorrow? Well, WIPR has just dropped the hint when quoting the PT team: “A spokesperson for the EPO told WIPR that the office’s management intends to resume its “social dialogue” with the union.
“A meeting to discuss union recognition talks is set for Wednesday, January 20. This is the same day that SUEPO is due to hold another demonstration in support of the three members.”
Got that? The EPO’s marketing bunnies now pretend to have “union recognition talks”, less than a week after firing some of the most essential and most charismatic SUEPO representatives. How do Team Battistelli members sleep at night? Calling them liars would be an understatement. They also keep up the claims of “violence” from SUEPO (total fiction based on a deleted comment, but see the WIPR article repeating these claims). At least now we can guess what FTI Consulting is preparing behind the scenes, except propaganda events. Expect more socially-engineered ‘unions’ to emerge (Battistelli-leaning ones); this will be the subject of a future post of ours. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.18.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Support those at the top, for this is part of Battistelli’s decapitation strategy (no guillotines but prevention of organised actions)
Summary: The Staff Union of the European Patent Office, SUEPO, is organising another action against the management’s union-busting moves that culminated in sacking, pension reduction, and a terrible atmosphere of fear and terror
WE ARE trying quite hard to provide a complete picture — irrespective of the consequences — of EPO union-busting actions and what these have involved. Transparency is truth and truth is a sworn enemy of Team Battistelli. We are still hoping to get the text of the internal announcement from Battistelli (we need to prepare a rebuttal for it) and we are still in pursuit of English translations (from German) of two articles, one from Heise and another from journalists in Munich. There are various secure ways to contact us, including E-mail over Tor.
“The SUEPO is banned by Battistelli and has to be replaced by a ¨Union¨ according to his model and wishes.”
–AnonymousA lot of people have been posting information in IP Kat, where anonymous comments (not anonymous to Google) can be posted. One person pointed out today that: “From his decision to fire and downgrade SUEPO officials it is clear that for Battistelli individual people does not matter. What is important for him, he believes, is a strong central management. Individuals have to be forced to accept the roles given to them in the office. Examiners are producers, workers for him. These workers experience now that their rights at work are more and more taken away. The SUEPO is banned by Battistelli and has to be replaced by a ¨Union¨ according to his model and wishes.
“Battistelli studied at the ENA is a so called énarque.The énarques were criticised as early as the 1960s for their technocratic and arrogant ways. Such criticism has continued up to present times, with the énarques being accused of monopolizing positions in higher administration [the EPO] and politics without having to show real competence. It has become a recurrent theme for many French politicians to criticise ENA, even when they themselves are alumni of the school.”
We previously wrote a great deal about Battistelli’s ÉNA roots and his connections with powerful people [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Networking with them seems to be his most notable ‘skill’. Responding to someone's claim that pension cuts may be “blatantly illegal”, one person responded as follows:
The EPO certainly has the right to cut pensions, it says so in the service regulations. Actually, when one reads the service regulations, the EPO can even do that more than once, cutting your pension by a third with each round. The EPO can also do that to pensioners and widows. And the President can decides what he wants and fire you even when the disciplinary committee says otherwise, as he did with Ion Brumme. Obviously, the service regulations were not written in that spirit, and were never used this way in 40 years, but Battistelli is sticking to the letter of the law. And ILO will certainly find it this way as well, in practice ILO only checks whether the service regulations were correctly applied.
Further, the service regulations can be changed at will, as the EPO personal recently found out: career cuts, suppression of invalidity insurance, etc… When you enter the EPO, you sign a contract which you have to respect under penalty of being fired and have your pension cuts… and the EPO can change its end of the deal whenever they want. This kind of contract have a legal name, but nobody realized what they were really offered when they entered the EPO. Now they realize but they can’t get out.
Also, this is not only the EPO staff. Patent attorneys would be well advised to check how easily the EPO could damage them. The rumor (unverified, maybe someone knows more?) is that some attorneys were already “gently advised” to stay quiet in their private blogs. Obviously, the attorneys can’t get out either, but they have not realized the full extent of the deal yet.
The EPO was given enormous powers and a wide-ranging immunity, with very little check and balances to compensate them. There is not even a decent control system of the EPO finances and the EPO is producing 300 millions a year in surpluses. Anybody can imagine the consequences. Battistelli put one of his old good friends to audit the EPO finances.
Speaking of EPO finances, look how (and by who) money got wasted at an amazing pace. The management of the EPO is a disaster at so many levels. “The current penalty of 20% of pension,” wrote another person, “clearly leaves room to increase that to 1/3 if the fired person does not go quietly and/or discloses any details. Likewise, those fired without deduction still risk further steps if they, for instance, discuss their cases without permission. Note also the desire to control former staff’s employment (denied by the AC) which, of course, be enforced by attacking any outstanding pension rights. As you say, BB has seen the opportunity for unfettered control and is using it.”
“The management of the EPO is a disaster at so many levels.”The staff at the EPO is showing high levels of unrest by signing petitions in record numbers, protesting in record numbers, and complaining (anonymously of course) to the media. The EPO's PR team has nothing positive to say these days, so its “following orders”/”it came from above” staff still links to self-manufactured (and paid-for) greenwashing PR every 2-3 days (here is the latest example, citing a page last updated 1.5 months ago!).
A SUEPO demonstration is going to proceed as planned. It’s a day and a half away (later this week). “Actions continue at the European Patent Office,” SUEPO’s site stated today, “next demonstration on 20 January 2016 [...] The next demonstration will take place on Wednesday 20 January starting from the ISAR building at 12.30h. The demonstrators will march peacefully to the Bayerische Staatskanzlei.”
Well, maybe half of all EPO staff (or more) is going to attend. It’s very plausible.
“A SUEPO demonstration is going to proceed as planned.”Support for SUEPO comes from a lot of people out there, including Jeremy Phillips, who recently retired.
“Just spotted,” he wrote, “that the @EPOorg has sacked two union officials and downgraded a third” (severely downgraded).
“I’m hugely disappointed with the @EPOorg,” he added, “and the pusillanimous manner in which the Administrative Council oversees it” (this is why people must contact their delegates, which shouldn’t be too hard).
SUEPO has also just published a “Reply from Prof. Dr. Winfried Bausback, Bavarian Ministry of Justice” (potentially showing high-level support for SUEPO).
“SUEPO Munich received a reply from the Bavarian Ministry of Justice,” wrote the site’s administrator, “to the letter sent on 7 December 2016, in relation to the demonstration which took place on 10 December 2015. In his reply, he referred to the question posed by German MP Jutta Krellmann dated 8 October, which you could find here.”
Only the question is in English, so again we may need a good translation or two from German into English. █
“Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of our democracy.”
–Jesse Jackson
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Political actions against the EPO’s management are rapidly multiplying after the busting of labour unions
THE EPO coverage will accelerate tomorrow, but before we get to the new stories we want to mention Mr. Cordery again. As noted here earlier today, Philip Cordery, who represents overseas workers, is very angry at the fellow Frenchman, Mr. Battistelli, who surrounded himself by other (often similarly underqualified) Frenchmen.
Someone sent us a translation of Cordery’s rant just a couple of hours after our request for a translation. Here it is:
Black day in the European Patent Office (EPO / European Patent Office).
Antisocial management of the EPO, led by its President M. Battistelli, has reached new heights today. Unprecedented sanctions were imposed against three staff representatives: the president of Suepo Munich is dismissed with on the top a 20% reduction of her pension rights; the former president of that organisation (TRANSLATOR NOTE: here the SUEPO union) is also dismissed; the treasurer downgraded by 8 levels, which equates to lose 15 years of work. The reason? Having deigned to publicly represent their colleagues to attempt to defend their rights.
These authoritarian and arbitrary decisions are purely scandalous. The most basic rights of employees, in force in all European countries, are trampled in the EPO without any national or international court being able to act. Immunity does not mean impunity.
For too many years, the social situation of this organisation is worsening. Enough is enough. All Member States must act quickly, like France, which has repeatedly called for a social audit. I again appealed the government in this sense. There is an urgent need to put an end to the arbitrariness and to bring back to live this organisation which is so important for the whole of Europe.
I want to assure all staff, and in particular the representatives, of my full support. We remain vigilant and act with all our means until democracy and justice regain their rights within the Office.
At 7:30 today the same person posted the translation in IP Kat as well. It’s important for all the people who work at the EPO. They all ought to read it. Some politicians are sincerely and passionately fighting for EPO staff right now. Based on information which we can not yet disclose (we will in the near future), there are similar actions against the EPO’s management going on inside the EPO’s complaints mechanism, in British politics, and in European politics. The wheels are moving and to speed things up we urge all readers to contact their delegates without hesitation. It makes a big difference when these delegates receive feedback from people; many of these delegates don’t follow the news. Some things are better left behind the scenes for the time being. Change may be imminent and we’re not pessimistic. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: An example of Internet trolls and a reminder that they oughtn’t be fed because it proves to be a waste of effort and a distraction from the important topics (like Topić)
AS an international institution the EPO should, in principle, obey international law. Instead what they have there is nepotism and Putinism (autocracy). Don’t be mistaken. I am personally strongly in favour of the European Union (EU), but the EPO is not part of it. The EPO predates the EU by several decades and unlike the EU or EP (or even the EC), the EPO does not even pretend to be democratic. It doesn’t even obey the EPC. One day we’ll research, further explore, and finally report on the roots of the EPO (one source tells us that the EPO took over a commercial company).
“What happened on Friday was elimination of the heads of unions, who had already been suspended for a couple of months (severely limiting their ability to operate).”Worth noting, in light of what happens in IP Kat right about now, is that people need to focus on the abuses of the management and the innocence of staff representatives whom this management has just fired. Do not feed the trolls (see Wikipedia’s definition). Yes, trolls do exist and they are floating the management’s talking points, whether deliberately or not (and whether financially compensated for it or not). There was no “investigation” of staff representatives; it’s a euphemism for union busting. What happened on Friday was elimination of the heads of unions, who had already been suspended for a couple of months (severely limiting their ability to operate). ILO is far too slow to help the fired representatives and the ‘appeal’ system is internal at the EPO (i.e. sham trial guaranteed). Contact national delegates for possible reprieve (some of them do listen and even respond).
For better or for worse (considering Google’s spotty record on anonymity at Blogspot), IP Kat became a de facto go-to forum for anonymous people to express their grievances regarding the EPO. Yesterday we saw some troll trying to discredit Techrights. “Just sayin`” (that’s the pseudonym) wrote:
Boohoo, cry me a river! Two employees have been fired.
Do you know how many get fired daily in the real world?
And judging from the letters published by Techrights, this was even justified after them harrassing colleagues.
Get real people, also staffreps can make mistakes. And they also get to pay the price.
No, I`m not a management troll, just being realistic.
Yes, “not a management troll”. Well, apparently a troll nonetheless. The above is designed to provoke (“Boohoo, cry me a river!”) and it’s a pattern that’s familiar to us. It’s a troll who distracts and one who derails the discussion, leading to a debate about an entirely different topic, discouraging fruitful participation and turning off readers/audience. We wrote many articles about such trolls over the years (usually in relation to Free/Open Source software).
The letters and rebuttals which we published here show the opposite of what’s claimed by the troll. Notice the troll’s statement, “I`m not a management troll, just being realistic.” If you’re not a troll, you don’t need to state that. As MinceR put it in the #techrights IRC channel last night, “he merely stated that he’s a troll, but not from the management” (recall the FTI Consulting contract).
This isn’t the first time we see such provocation inside IP Kat. We previously covered it in “Suppression of Voices Critical of the European Patent Office (EPO)“. Readers always swallow the bait and a lot of efforts is spent cleaning up the trolls’ vomit. Some people correctly identified this as a troll, but nonetheless, the troll received some rather detailed replies, such as this:
I believe only one was fired for alleged harassment. The other was fired for what were deemed by the EPO to be unfair Ts&Cs in the union legal support contract.
Just being “realistic”? Hmm… I had another word in mind…
You should probably try to get your facts straight before you shoot off your mouth.
Just sayin’ 
Another wrote:
Sure, people get fired.
Yet, the first reason is…. lacking secrecy on your own case? Sure, that publication reflects badly on the EPO, so it does contravene the ServRegs, but does it reflect badly because of the stuff being published, or because of the content? And who is responsible for the conten?
The alleged harrasment? The Disciplinary Committee pointed out that only one of seven witnesses that were “interviewed” (with extremely suggestive questions) was able to confirm the case….
I have sincere issues with how the case was handled.
Also, implementing a harsher punishment than proposed by the DC?
Furthermore: further reforms were put on the tables of the consultative organs, where the staff representation was lacking representatives. I’ll bet that BB will use the votes, which were now 10 pro and 9 no as a proof that the reforms are wanted by the majority of staff, as those will be the first ones where he did not have to break the tie as chairperson in the obligatory consulting…
Anyway, think what you want, you’re able to make your own opinion, and it is your right to point out that most employees are worse off. But those do have access to court decissions in a reasonable time, we do not. Thus we have no means against an unjustified firing.
Some people put a lot of effort into it, responding to the troll with facts:
As extremely sad as this is, the firing of the two and the severe sanctions against the third (she has no hope of ever reaching her former salary again) elected staff representatives and elected union leaders are, unfortunately, just the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many more who have been investigated, harassed, intimidated, or quietly forced into retirement. And just imagine the shivers this imparts to the remaining staff: most of them patent judges in search, examination, opposition, and appeals.
On the broader scale, the system of checks and balances, if it ever deserved the name as it has been designed in the EPC (dear authors, I’m sorry having to write this) and the Staff Regulations, has been made an utter mockery by Mr. Battistelli. Administrative Council is being mishandled; anybody who dares to disagree sees her cooperation budget annihilated, not to mention the time allotted to her country in the various committees drop precipitously.
Mr. Battistelli’s “social democracy” has made it much more difficult for staff to voice opinion or raise grievances. A million miles from striving to design a better system, Mr. Battistelli apparently takes particular pleasure at creating conflicts of interest and opportunities for harassment and intimidation. The former General Advisory Committee, a forum for management and staff representatives to discuss proposed changes at the Office that are of importance to staff, has been re-designed into the General Consultative Committee and to the point of irrelevance that Mr. Battistelli has no inhibitions about publishing the list of its members for 2016 with more members from the (top) management than those appointed by the staff representation, then reducing the staff side further by firing the next day.
In addition, the very staff representatives that have now been fired had already been reporting directly to PD HR. Even the rules for election of staff representation – a very important function, separate from the unions, in the social contract in Germany and, formerly, the EPO – have been designed by the administration. These are just a few examples; there are lots more in all important areas of the Office. The internal appeals process has been made much more intimidating to the appellant than it ever was. The system of occupational health and data protection have been all but killed. Small wonder that this has lead to several colleagues taking their lives recently.
Having fired the most courageous staff reps, Mr. Battistelli has reached new heights. No individual in the Office and hardly anybody in the Administrative Council dares to contradict him. It appears that it is only a matter of time before all staff will be afraid to demonstrate.
What’s on the plus side? Production has gone up, possibly at the expense of quality, and most staff still have a job that many of them can hardly afford to leave, having abandoned their careers as engineers and scientists years ago. It’s less secure than before, much less pleasurable, in some aspects becoming shameful.
Unfortunately, I don’t think I can afford to voice my opinion openly and that’s why I post my thoughts here anonymously.
This one comment correctly states that “one reason for dismissal was to reveal that they were being investigated, I guess that is also normal? And (allegedly)assisting someone who hasn’t been disciplined for allegedly doing something was a second reason.” Here is the comment in full:
Thanks for that. Since the accused are not allowed to reveal that they are accused, let alone what they are accused of, your insight is useful. Since one reason for dismissal was to reveal that they were being investigated, I guess that is also normal? And (allegedly)assisting someone who hasn’t been disciplined for allegedly doing something was a second reason. Again normal? And the complainant being the one who led the investigation and led the prosecution? Normal again?
I appreciate that sometimes bad things happen, but is that reason to accept it? And when that comes from a body operating in the legal world and with seeming total legal immunity, is that not questionable? I see your point, but I have to politely disagree.
Here is a Dutch irony being pointed out:
The decision came back to my mind after the dismissal of the two SUEPO officials.
Well, I guess we all should thank the Dutch government for having decided not to enforce the decision of an independent court for the latest actions of Mr. Battistelli – after all, the message from the Dutch minister was quite clear: you’re free to do whatever you want, Mr. Battistelli!.
One year later, the consequences are here for all to see – and what an irony that the most prominent victim of Battistelli is a Dutch citizen! (Elisabeth Hardon)
Ah, and many thanks to the Administrative Council of the EPO too, who did not think that having the Office being accused of infringing human rights was so important after all. What happened in the last days, honourable members of the AC of the EPO, are the results of your greed, lack of morals and cowardice.
Here is a response to what we’re interpreting as an opportunistic attack on Techrights, as if we have proven the management right and just:
” And judging from the letters published by Techrights, this was even justified after them harrassing colleagues….
No, I`m not a management troll, just being realistic.”
Thank you for constructively indicating that you are NOT a troll. The reader might have doubts after reading your submission . I suggest you re-reading the corresponding documents on Techright, of course only because you are not a troll!
“Barbi” wrote:
Contrary to the allegations, in the real world not many at all union leaders get fired! It is rather exceptional!
So I fail to see the alledged realism of the annonymous comment of 12.52.00 who assuers of not being a managent troll and of being realistic.
Best thing to do in such cases is not feed the trolls, even when they explicitly say they’re not trolls (didn’t Nixon say he was not a crook?). “Just sayin`” has not even replied since (classic drive-by trolling), which leads one to seeing just what a single short comment (that’s deliberately disruptive and insulting) is able to achieve. If this whole article in its own right feeds the troll, then hopefully the take-home message is that future trolls needn’t and shouldn’t be fed. Next up we have some important new revelations about Topić. This is the kind of topic that people should discuss anonymously in all sorts of forums. There is potential there for imprisonment. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA