EPO's Central Staff Committee is Now Redacting (Self-Censoring) Due to Threats From the EPO "Mafia"
"On the agenda: salary adjustment procedure for 2025 (as of January 2026)"
This week the Central Staff Committee at the EPO circulated some recent documents about a 'meeting' which took place nearly 2 months ago (online). It emphasises that key material is being censored by the abusers through threats that led to duress. Later this month and next month we'll explain how those abusers try to censor all sorts of other people inside the Office. The abusers try to cover up their misconduct by merely blackmailing those willing to talk about the misconduct. That's not the sign of a healthy institution, is it?
Anyway, this is what staff received this week:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich, 12-01-2026
sc26001cpReport on the GCC meeting of
17 November 2025Dear Colleagues,
The General Consultative Committee (GCC) met by videoconference on 17 November 2025. The following items were on the agenda of the meeting and the CSC members of the GCC raised their concerns and tried to get further clarifications:
• Contributions to the EPO healthcare insurance scheme payable for gainfully employed spouses in 2026 Circ. 425 – for consultation GCC/DOC 17/2025
• Adjustment with effect from 1 January 2026 of salaries and other elements of the remuneration of employees of the European Patent Office and of pensions paid by the Office – for consultation GCC/DOC 18/2025
• Annual adjustment of young child allowance and education allowance with effect from 1 January 2026 – for consultation GCC/DOC 19/2025
• Revision with effect from 1 January 2026 of the rates of the daily subsistence allowance – for consultation GCC/DOC 20/2025
• Revision with effect from 1 January 2026 of the rates of the kilometric allowance (Circ. 319) – for consultation GCC/DOC 21/2025
• Revision with effect from 1 January 2026 of the rates of the lump sum compensation of removal expenses (Circ. 326) – for consultation GCC/DOC 22/2025
• Review report on salary adjustment method foreseen in Article 12(1) of the Implementing Rule for Article 64 of the Service Regulations – for information GCC/DOC 23/2025
• CA/100 Orientation paper on Talent Planning and Recruitment 2026 – for information GCC/DOC 24/2025
• Office-wide organisational adjustments 2026 stream 1 – for information GCC/DOC 25/2025
The CSC members of the GCC provided the following details opinions and comments on the salary adjustment procedure:
• Opinion on GCC/DOC 18/2025 (Redacted)
• Comments on GCC/DOC 23/2025 (Redacted)
Following reproaches from the President, the CSC exceptionally blackened out sections of these final documents under duress.
The other details opinions and comments are annexed to this paper.
The Central Staff Committee
Opinion on GCC/DOC 17/2025:
Contributions to the EPO healthcare insurance scheme payable
for gainfully employed spouses in 2026 Circ. 425The CSC members of the GCC note that the contributions to the EPO healthcare insurance scheme payable for gainfully employed spouses will rise sharply in 2026. These increases come in addition to the already significant rise in general social security contributions.
With regard to the Implementing Rules for Articles 83a, 84 and 84a of the Service Regulations (“Implementing Rules”), section K, points (a) and (b), the contributions for spouses in gainful employment with a gross income higher than the basic salary at grade G1, step 4 will increase as follows.
Regarding the exception in section K, point (c) of the Implementing Rules, the contributions for spouses in gainful employment with a gross income of between 50% and 100% of the basic salary at grade G1, step 4 will change as follows.
The double-digit percentage increases are noteworthy and raise concern. It is also notable that the 2026 contribution of EUR 487,05 exceeds the total (!) contribution rate to the EPO healthcare insurance scheme of 10,5% of the basic salary at grade G1, step 4.
The CSC members of the GCC acknowledge that the preparatory discussions on the proposed amendments to Circular No. 425 were conducted in an exemplary manner. Relevant documents were distributed in a timely fashion on 21 October 2025. The subsequent meeting of the GCC SSPR on 27 October 2025 took place in an open and constructive atmosphere. The presentation and accurate minutes of the meeting were provided on 4 November 2025 without the need for a specific request. Comprehensive answers to outstanding questions were also delivered thereafter.
Furthermore, the CSC members of the GCC still recognise the results of the social dialogue that took place in 2023, which led to improvements in the application of a clause in section K, point (a) of the Implementing Rules (“a monthly contribution to the scheme for the spouse
calculated with reference to the market prices for low premiums offered by reputable private healthcare insurers for the minimal cover required by law in the spouse's country of employment”). The averaging of the three tariffs “Hallesche NK4”, “Continentale Comfort-U” and “ARAG K1500” has helped to smoothen the adjustments. Continuing the former approach based solely on the “Hallesche NK4” tariff would have resulted in even higher contributions.
In view of the sharp rise in the already high contribution rates for gainfully employed spouses in gainful employment with a gross income higher than the basic salary at grade G1, step 4, the CSC members of the GCC propose the following improvement for future calculations: When averaging premiums of the private health insurers mentioned above, the weighting currently reflects the number of spouses in the respective age cohort. Conceptually, it would be more appropriate to use the age of the spouse at the time of entry into the EPO healthcare insurance scheme rather than the current age.
Finally, the CSC members of the GCC wish to highlight that documentation requirements for spouses in gainful employment can be burdensome, particularly for those who are self- employed. A more streamlined approach would be beneficial. For spouses earning less than 50% of the basic salary at grade G1, step 4, it would be reasonable to allow a simple checkbox declaration without requiring additional documentation. If necessary, the Office could still carry out spot checks to ensure compliance.
The CSC members note the above sharply increased figures and some unnecessary administrative overhead with concern and therefore submit the foregoing constructive suggestions for improvement. There is hope that the good social dialogue on the issue of contributions for gainfully employed spouses will continue. A similar spirit of cooperation on the part of the administration would be welcome in other areas as well, such as the discussions on the salary adjustment method.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion on GCC/DOC 19/2025, GCC/DOC 20/2025, GCC/DOC 21/2025, and GCC/DOC 22/2025.
Regarding GCC/DOC 19/2025, the ceilings and lump sums for the young child and education allowance are set to be adjusted by +2.18%. This increase remains significantly below the actual rise in costs borne by colleagues entitled to these allowances, thereby failing to reflect the real financial impact.
Setting aside the actual inflation rates in the places of employment, it is noted that the average increase in international school fees at the places of employment is significantly greater. For example, in The Hague fees have risen on average by more than 5%, while in Vienna the increase is around 3%. Even more concerning, crèche prices have in some cases exceeded a 10% rise.
Annex IV of the ServRegs reads “Amounts will be reviewed regularly to take into account the evolution of childcare and education costs at the respective places of employment”.
After five years since the launch of the Education and Childcare Allowance Reform, no comprehensive review has yet been undertaken. We therefore urge the Administration to conduct a review of the current ceilings and lump sums, and to adjust them in line with the actual increases in the relevant costs. Such an adjustment is necessary to ensure that the measure accurately reflects the genuine financial burden borne by staff.In addition, the arithmetic average applied is fundamentally compromised by the illegality affecting the final results of the SAP. This flaw necessarily extends to all other allowances and lumpsum that have been adjusted on the basis of those results, thereby undermining their validity.
In conclusion, the adjustments proposed in GCC/DOC 19/2025, GCC/DOC 20/2025, GCC/DOC 21/2025, and GCC/DOC 22/2025 must, insofar as the SAP is not considered lawful, likewise be regarded as unlawful.
The CSC members in the GCC
Comments regarding document GCC/DOC 24/2025
The document states that a skills-based approach to talent planning is applied, that internal career development is prioritised over external recruitment, and that examiner recruitment is a key driver of operational capacity and quality. “High-Quality Products and Services” is defined as a central pillar of SP2028. If these statements are to be taken seriously, they must also be reflected consistently in staffing policies.
Against this background, the statement that “For the future it is envisaged to expand the proportion of YP in the PGP area” raises significant concerns, as it appears to contradict the principles just outlined, if the intention should be that YP perform examiner tasks for less money. The core responsibilities of an examiner cannot be delegated to YPs without compromising quality. High-quality patent products require examiners with solid scientific expertise, extensive training, and the independence necessary for sound decision-making. These factors are not optional; they are the very basis of the EPO’s reputation and operational credibility.
The introduction of five-year examiner contracts has already weakened these foundations. New examiners no longer receive the level of training previous generations benefited from, and fixed-term employment inherently increases vulnerability to pressure. Under such circumstances, it becomes more difficult—if not impossible—to develop the skills and independence essential to delivering high-quality outcomes. This trend directly undermines the stated SP2028 objective.
The YP programme was created to give young professionals broad exposure to the IP environment and to help the Office identify talent. However, we now hear that YPs in PGP are performing examiner tasks at lower remuneration. This approach risks devaluing examiner work and creating a parallel pathway that circumvents the standards upon which quality depends.
If the High-Quality Products and Services pillar is genuinely to guide policy, then examiner work must be appropriately recognised and supported. This requires:
• hiring suitable YPs into examiner roles after one year,
• granting examiners permanence after their five-year contract, and
• substantially reinvesting in robust technical and procedural training.
If the Office aims to attract more YP from STEM universities, as stated in the document, and secure long-term operational capacity in its core business, it must adopt innovative recruitment strategies.
The CSC members in the GCC
Comments regarding document GCC DOC25/2025 Office-wide
organisational adjustments 2026 - stream 1In some way it makes sense to change the organisation and there are many ways to have an effective organisation. Consultation and dialogue with the staff representation would present an improvement.
As with previous office-wide reorganisations we can deplore that no consultations or explanations took place, neither with the involved staff nor with the Staff Representatives. We are again presented with the ‘fait accompli’ presented only for information.
Since the adjustments described in this GCC document are called “-stream 1” it is already clear that there will be a “-stream 2”. Which is concerning, as continuous changes in organisational structures can negatively impact staff by creating confusion, stress, fatigue and resistance, leading to decreased productivity and lower morale, we believe neither the administration nor the staff wants that.
The continuous stress due to change, the lack of clear communication from the higher management showing the purpose of this all, and the understaffing, has already resulted in the demotivation of even the most motivated persons. If the administration doesn’t seriously consider that staff is at the limit, it could be confronted with increase in sick leave, staff leaving in pension earlier than intended and with an even bigger decrease in the sense of belonging. We already observe raising numbers in long term sick leave in the latest statistics. The result will be a huge deficiency in knowledge, competencies and a loss of efficiency, the exact opposite of the aimed result stated in the document. The document also states that the aim is to enhance staff connectivity, engagement and the sense of belonging. None of them is achieved at the moment, in fact the opposite is the reality.
The same arguments are applied to justify the merging of new teams as well as later to justify dissolving them and similarly for centralisation and decentralisation of the same tasks.
Organisational adjustments in DG0
The confidential counsellors moved from HR to the Ombuds Office in 2020. Now moving them back to DG 4 (PD4.2.) poses more risks to their independence than it provides benefits of synergies. The most important aspect for staff should be the independence guaranteed by circular 341, which was confirmed during the meeting. We also draw attention to the importance of increasing the visibility of this valuable service offered. To avoid repeated changes, we suggest that the network should move to an independent staff unit outside the hierarchy alongside the president, comparable to the data protection unit. Effective collaboration and communication should be possible office wide.Organisational adjustments in DG1
Earlier reorganisations within DG1 were based on project management results stating that team sizes ideally managed by a TM would be 8 to 10 staff members. Teams now grow to 20 staff members. In the meeting the administration motivated the changes for the purpose of enhancing efficiency and consistency. Yet, this does not explain how teams which were conceived to operate best with 8-10 staff members would be managed better with twice as many staff members. What would the administration define as organisational maturity in this continuous trend of reorganisations? Further, when is there a strategic resting point of organisational structure in sight?
These questions remained unanswered.
Organisational adjustments in DG4 / CIO and CTO
Regarding the changes in DG4, the document states that user centricity shall be reinforced in the development of IT tools. But the administration did not explain how the suppression of the CTO role would produce said reinforcement of user centricity.Furthermore, it is stated on page 9 of the document, at the very least part, that activities related to consumer analytics will be embedded elsewhere in the organisation, but the document is silent about where this will be the case. Our question if this was known at the time of the meeting, could not be sufficiently answered. That a mere change of the team’s name would enhance efficiency remains doubtful.
The envisaged change to Facilities and Events Centre of Excellence team, recognising its increasing involvement in the co-ordination and delivery of events, is a good example of contradiction in the ongoing reorganisations. Citing GCC DOC 15/2019 with regards to the centralisation of all events in PD02. “The move …to PD Communication reflects the strategic importance of all events, exhibitions and presentations organised and delivered on behalf of the Office. Such activities reinforce the corporate branding and culture and it is therefore essential that the organisation of the events follows an aligned approach, whatever the focus of the event itself. The move will also enhance the decision- making process and should provide the Office with more opportunities for efficiency gains.” …. and “… to streamline processes and to ensure that tasks or responsibilities are not duplicated.” … That BIT events are of a different kind as mentioned during the meeting, supports the observation of moving in circles.
The department Patent Information User Services will be dissolved into several other units. After renaming Patent Information to Patent Knowledge and shortly after Patent Intelligence the last remains of PI, excluding the tools, have vanished. Even though this department, after the last reorganisation reduced to three staff members and tasks moved somewhere else, the services towards our users decreased significantly. Internal reorganisations influence the quality of our products and services and are visible to our users. This was confirmed by the user satisfaction report presented in the AC. In the area of EP Register, the user satisfaction is declining and similarly the feedback results regarding Espacenet require enhancement.
“A number of name changes are planned, … to improve clarity, ensure alignment with each team's evolving responsibilities and facilitate more effective internal and external collaboration.”
A change of the name would not suffice to have the intended effect but rather careful planning, involvement of stakeholders, including staff representatives, change management and communication. Some individual consultation with staff effected is not sufficient.
We observed that colleagues do not know their own unit’s name or number, also commenting that they would not be bothered as it would change soon again. This is a typical reaction of inner resignation, and this is concerning.
The statement regarding the name changes might explain the belief that the constant renaming of organisational units is a useful solution towards a well-functioning organisation but research and the staff representation are convinced that it is phases of evaluation and consolidation as well as
consultation and collaboration with the staff representation that would increase the effectiveness of the organisation and wellbeing of staff, which is still the main workforce asset of the EPO.
The CSC members of the GCC
Notice how in page 4 they say "insofar as the SAP is not considered lawful, likewise be regarded as unlawful."
Aside from this, there's the 80-page Opinion on GCC/DOC 18/2025 and 32-page Comments on GCC/DOC 23/2025. We won't be converting these to GemText, plain text, and HTML, but we have made publicly-accessible copies. Lots of staff got those already. █