ILOAT Judgment No. 4394: In Conclusion
No light at the end of this tunnel
THE previous parts [1, 2] in this mini series showed there is mild disagreement on the cases' outcome. Cordial disagreement is fine, it's part of a civil society. Based on numerous people whom we spoke to, the ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) either did or did not fulfil its duties. In some cases, it even aggravated matters, both physically and psychologically. The damage can never be undone. Lives got ruined. ILO and ILOAT portray themselves as allies and protectors of labour. But we know for sure that in the past ILOAT let down disabled people, even people whose disability is the sole fault of the grossly understaffed EPO (inducing a culture of overwork). As we repeatedly explained over 5 years ago, the EPO just used them for their mental and physical capacity, then threw them away (after burnout or physical "wear and tear"). EPO management may think this is good for short-term "efficiency" and "productivity" (as if people are mere "cogs"), but the EPO will suffer from very negative karma, which goes well beyond lessening recruitment prospects. There are sayings about how society is to be judged by the way it treats (or mistreats) the most vulnerable people. EPO gets an "F"; thank the EPO's "F-ing President" (this is how António Campinos refers to himself!).
ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) Judgment No. 4394 was shared here in full before, along with my personal interpretation. Another person's interpretation of ILOAT Judgment No. 4394 was also shared here.
The point is that some employees having developed incapacities, said one reader, were sent to a benefit of a pension after consultation of a medical committee (invalidity status). One condition for the invalidity was that the residual working capacity be less than 50%. After retiring under such conditions some of the affected colleagues started a new professional life e.g. as a patent attorney, a writer, a taxi driver or anything else. They could engage in a limited professional activity. In 2015 (under Benoît Battistelli) all beneficiaries of an invalidity received a letter from the administration informing them that from 2016 onwards any gainful activity would be prohibited and those who had such an activity should resign and were asked for a proof of resignation.
Some of the affected colleagues introduced an appeal that was "summarily" dismissed as unfounded. The colleagues sent their cases to the ILO Administrative Tribunal in Geneva and won... but the case was remitted to the EPO for a decision on the merits.
To make it short, the reader explained, that is the way the EPO treats one of the most fragile part of the employees, the ones which would otherwise deserve a particular attention due to their health status.
The EPO is led by criminals without morality, the reader concluded.
Having recently covered material from the General Assembly, we can see things have not improved. European software patents are being granted in large volumes and patent maximalists are merely vindicating those of us who cautioned UPC would almost literally feed patent trolls (1-2 days ago they said this explicitly and shamelessly, even in the headline). The EPO poses a threat to Europe as a whole, not just to its staff and to patent stakeholders. █