"The Appeals Committee [at the EPO] Unanimously Stated a Formal Flaw in the Consultation of the General Consultative Committee (GCC) on the Reform"
Days ago:
Almost 11 years ago we started our in-depth exploration of EPO affairs and 10 years ago Benoît Battistelli hired several laws firms in London to SLAPP us and stalk us. Why? Because the EPO is basically Europe's largest hub of corruption (white-collar crimes aplenty) and it doesn't want the press - not even bloggers! - talking about it. António Campinos too has repeatedly censored and threatened staff. He's the current chief overseeing all this corruption, not just the person covering up for his personal friend, a fellow Frenchman, Battistelli. Don't expect him or his predecessors to be held accountable as long as they bribe for votes (they pay the voters!) and install their moles inside the EU (where EPO corruption has already spread).
It's a truly horrifying situation and everyone in Europe (except perhaps patent lawyers, i.e. 0.01% or less of the population) will suffer from it. EPO staff too is suffering, albeit in other ways. These people take home salaries, but they're forced to do illegal things, not limited to granting European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable. The hands and brains that do this aren't happy, but there's that Yuppie Nuremberg defence in Munich and elsewhere.
Today we share some documents circulated earlier today by SUEPO TH committee, where TH means The Hague (even if it's Rijswijk).
SUEPO is the staff's union. It sent the following message:
Appeals Committee speaks, EPO please listen!
Last week a number of important appeal opinions related to the Education & Childcare Allowance were communicated to the Appellants and made available in the INAP database.
The Appeals Committee's opinions provide valuable insight into the scope of the Education & Childcare Allowance reform, particularly concerning Article 71 of the ServRegs. We are pleased to report that the Appeals Committee ruled in favour of the appellants and issued recommendations to the Office on how to comply with the ServRegs.
[...]
EPO: please listen to your internal justice system, also when it speaks in favour of staff!
We will provide an update following the GCC meeting with the latest developments.
The full publication was as follows:
21 May 2025
su25004hp – 0.2.1/5.2Positive ApC opinions on the Education and Childcare reform
Appeals Committee speaks; EPO please listen!
Dear SUEPO members, dear colleagues,
Last week a number of important appeal opinions related to the Education & Childcare Allowance were communicated to the Appellants and made available in the INAP database.
The Appeals Committee's opinions provide valuable insight into the scope of the Education & Childcare Allowance reform, particularly concerning Article 71 of the ServRegs. We are pleased to report that the Appeals Committee ruled in favour of the appellants and issued recommendations to the Office on how to comply with the ServRegs.
The Appeals Committee’s findings establish the following:25
a) Exam fees constitute a component of tuition fees and should therefore be fully refunded as direct costs under Article 71.25
b) Administration costs are part of the enrolment fee and must be fully refunded as direct costs under Article 71.25
c) Compulsory day trips and in-school activity days, being an integral part of the school’s educational program, qualify as tuition fees and should therefore be fully refunded as direct costs under Article 71.25
d) Mandatory university campus fees should be considered partially as tuition fees, warranting a partial refund under Article 71, with a recommended reimbursement rate of 50%.25
e) A significant legal flaw occurred during the consultation process, as the wording of Article 71 ServRegs and Article 20 of CA/D 4/21 was substantively changed after the GCC consultation.25
f) The Office should refrain from compelling staff members to modify their requests in the Education Allowance Portal and instead reimburse the undisputed amounts directly.25
g) The Office should ensure that salary slips clearly indicate the articles corresponding to each type of reimbursement.
Unfortunately, the Office has chosen to follow the recommendations of the Appeals Committee only on points (a) and (b), while disregarding all other aspects. Additionally, the Office has submitted document GCC/DOC 10/2025 (Titled: ECR guidelines - application of education and childcare reform) for consultation in the upcoming GCC meeting on 02 June 2025. The document proposes further restrictions on staff entitlements and deviates from the recommendations of the Appeals Committee.
This raises serious concerns about the purpose of internal justice mechanisms if their conclusions are repeatedly ignored1, as well as how this approach by the Office contributes to reducing litigation before the Tribunal.
EPO: please listen to your internal justice system, also when it speaks in favour of staff!
We will provide an update following the GCC meeting with the latest developments.
As always do not hesitate to contact us for questions or comments.
Kind regards,
Your SUEPO TH committee – M18B10 and De Bruyn Kopsstraat, 15, Rijswijk[...]
____ 1 See for example “Appeals Committee favours staff and pensioners in salary adjustment litigation”, SUEPO Central, 21.06.2024 and “Rejections of appeals on NPS/SSP benefits: Open letter to the President”, CSC, 18.10.2023.
In support of the above publication they've disseminated the appeal opinions and Document for the General Consultative Committee as authentic PDF files. █